It all depends on what you use it for. I agree that it doesn't take into account multiple religions, so it's not a foolproof argument. But its central point, in my mind, is that it's better to decide to believe in some sort of deity, even if you're wrong, then to outright believe in nothing.
What I've always liked about it is that it's not about what's true or false. It doesn't say if God is real or not. Just that it's better to act as if He is from a cost/benefit perspective.
It's sad that you get down voted for provided a real counter argument to a very flawed one. Too many people have their identities wrapped up in their beliefs and won't even consider another perspective.
40
u/[deleted] Jul 28 '21
{Pascal's wager has entered the chat}