Pascal's Wager is a Good Argument for Belief in God

First of all I would object to the language used in the summation of the argument for--not in the sense that its meaning is incorrect, but only that it's crude and Pascal doesn't use it. In fact he doesn't even use the words "heaven" and "hell" in the entire argument. Granted the argument is usually framed that way. Rather he writes in terms of infinite happiness (reward) and the loss of infinite happiness (t his can mean a number of things).Let's stick with the language that Pascal uses. In response to your first argument that the Wager doesn't take into account the plurality of mutually exclusive religious beliefs and gods, I say this is an intellectual prank on your part. When I ask you, "Do you believe in God?," you know exactly what I'm talking about. What is at issue is the one omniscient, omnipotent Creator God of Abraham, the God of covenantal history who reveals himself. Abrahamic religions account for more than half of the world's total population (Wiki). They include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others. In the words of William James, belief in Baal, Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Hindu gods for that matter, is a "dead option." They offer no emotive appeal and are utterly alien. You also say that perhaps a God exists who values reason and science over faith and that believing in God despite the evidence would send you straight to hell. But you assume that faith is opposed to reason and science. Tell me how. You assume that the God of Abraham accepts blind faith and does not require of the believer some reasons for his or her faith. Show me evidence of this. In response to your second argument that the Wager assumes that God wouldn't see right through the ruse, if the Wager is your entire basis for your religious life then yes, you're absolutely right. But you're assuming that Pascal is proposing that a person's entire faith be based on the Wager, when all he's arguing is that it may well provide the first motives for faith. But eventually the unbeliever who opts for belief will become "faithful, honest, humble, grateful, full of good works, a sincere, true friend" (#418). There's a maturation process which God is surely aware of. OR there may not be. Maybe the person remains immature and depending upon the Wager. God knows this, and Pascal never claimed that you could "sneak one by" God. Lastly, you say that you cannot just make yourself believe in something. You're right. No one can just immediately will themselves to believe something that isn't apparent to them. But Pascal doesn't claim this either. That's why he says that behaving as if you did believe "will make you believe quite naturally." I mean, the point here with the Wager is that the person finds himself in a position in which he cannot believe. Pascal says, "At least get it into your head that, if you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions, since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions." I say that the Wager shows that there is good and compelling reason to *opt* for belief in God, that is, to incline in that direction. But I don't believe that it can stop there. One must become mature in their faith and have definitive reasons for it that are based on the truth and not just pragmatism.