Over all Pascal's Wager is very logical, but I must say that I do not personally find it to be very persuasive. Although it makes complete sense in the risks involved in the wager and that it is over all more beneficial to be faithful and bet on their being a god than it is to assume there is no god and be wrong, but rather the wager gives no other reason as to why one should believe in god other than the fact that if there is a god u gain more by believing and by disbelieving you loose much more than if there is no god and you believe or disbelieve. If there is no god there is not much lost or won in either case. .
Pascal's Wager offers no more than this as to why one should believe in god. It seems very similar to the mother who tells her children that they must behave otherwise Santa will not deliver toys and games on Christmas Eve, but regardless of the child's actions they (at least in most cases) get a visit from Santa on Christmas, who leaves many toys and presents. In a way Pascal is making the same exact threat, follow and believe in God and you will go to heaven, but if you don't then you will pay dearly, granted there is a God. If there is not a God then nothing is truly lost from this practice. Just like if Santa exists, behave and Santa will visit leaving many goodies behind for the good girls and boys or misbehave and you will get coal in your stocking. If, on the other hand, it is only the parents of the child playing the role of Santa then generally regardless of how the child acts and behaves he or she will receive the toys. Leaving the entire thing as an empty threat, which in many cases is how Pascal's Wager is viewed. .
Also it seems that one cannot just change their whole entire point of view and beliefs just because they have come to the conclusion that "oh wait what if there really is a God. I better start believing now or else I could really ruin things after I die.
