Pascal's Wager is not a convincing reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

Thank you. I shall give five arguments with demonstrating that Pascal's Wager is not convincing. Two shall deal with possibilities outside the scope of a Judeo-Christian God, while three shall be concerned with the Judeo-Christian God himself. I. There is no evidence that God exists. Pascal's Wager assumes that belief in a God and disbelief are similar entities with similar probabilities. However, this is clearly not the case. The probability that God does not exist far outweighs the probability that a god does exist, thus completely changing the calculus involved with the wager. Note that no (read: no) evidence has cropped up that God exists. Science is inching closer, every day, to finding the explanation for the origin of the universe, including a recent proof that the Universe could have been self-creating [1]. Famous scientist Stephen Hawking has reaffirmed this view [2]. This means that the side of Pascal's Wager dealing with the existence of God is cognitively meaningless, because we have no reason to believe that such a possibility could reasonably occur. I will expound upon this further, in later argumentation, if required. Half of the wager is not philosophically serious. II. The Judeo-Christian God is (probabilistically) the wrong one. Humankind has, throughout its history, invented thousands, if not millions, of gods. In fact, in Haiti alone, there are over 10,000 deities [3]. This means that, if every god has the same probability of existence (and we see no reason to the contrary), then the probability that the Judeo-Christian one is incorrect is incredibly high. What is important to note about this is that many of the gods mankind has created, including the deities of Hinduism and Buddhism, among hundreds of others, do not care if you believe in them or not [4]. Rather, your prospects after you die depend on your acts, or even random chance. Calvinism believes in the contrary, as it preaches that salvation is predetermined. Thus, if you were not among the Elect, it would not matter if you believed or not. The point is that disbelief, even if a god exists, is probabilistically the preferable option. The Wager probably will lead you to the wrong God. III. The Judeo-Christian God's possible characterizations show disbelief to be preferable. God, in the Bible, has two main configurations. The first is a wrathful one, while the second is a kind, merciful one. Disbelief is preferable in both accounts, on the main. The wrathful God is seen in spades through the Old Testament. Through genocides in Numbers 31, Joshua, and Chronicles, condoning slavery in Exodus, and stoning of non-virgins in Exodus 18, this God is one that seeks to eliminate those who act against his will. Note that this does not preclude those who do believe in him (as witnessed by the stoning of non-virgins example). This God, according to Colossians 3 and Galatians 5, will destroy those who partake in lust, for example. Note that, in Matthew 5, Jesus defines lust as even looking at a woman with desire. God will destroy anyone (which means everyone) who partakes in this. The point is that, even if you believe in the wrathful God, he will likely damn you for insignificant sins you have not repented for, including those thoughts that occur in men somewhere close to even 7 seconds. In fact, in Romans 3, Paul states that everyone sins, and in Romans 6, he declares that all sins are sufficient grounds for eternal punishment. That means everyone is doomed anyway. Wasting effort in belief is in vane. The kind, merciful God is exhibited later in the Old Testament, and in the Gospels. This God is one who acts fairly and justly, and judges those on their merits, per James 2. In fact, it would be incredibly unfair to judge those who could never have learned of a God, through no fault of their own. The perfectly good, merciful God would never do this. Thus, this God would judge you based upon how righteous of a life you have lived, and whether or not you searched meaningfully for the truth. Pascal's Wager does not encourage either of these things, and thus is not sufficient for salvation. Thus, the Wager also fails for the merciful, kind God. The Wager has not correctly characterized the Judeo-Christian God. IV. Hell is anathema to an omnibenevolent God. Pascal's Wager assumes the existence of Hell. This is problematic. Note that I have defined God as an omnibenevolent being. Indeed, Judeo-Christian tradition seems to dictate that God is a perfectly moral being. The problem of Hell splits two ways: 1) An omnibenevolent, just God would not punish a person eternally for temporal, ephemeral crimes, or 2) Such a God is not, actually, omnibenevolent, and, instead, creates beings, knowing full well that they are doomed to Hell (read: He creates beings solely for punishment). In either of these constructions, disbelief is the preferable option, because no one will be eternally punished in the former scenario, and, in the latter, the Judeo-Christian God as I have defined does not exist. The Wager fails here. The Wager has failed on a supra-Biblical philosophical level. There may be no stick. V. Belief fomented by the Wager is fundamentally inauthentic. Belief spurred by a pragmatic decision based upon confused game theory is not legitimate faith. Note that the Bible, in Hebrews 11, Luke 17, and Romans 10, among other places, caveats that true, legitimate faith, of the sort that merits salvation, is one that is an authentic, whole-hearted embrace of God's will, because the Holy Spirit has spoken to you (perhaps through your own pursuit of truth). If you decide to believe because of odds (effectively betting, which is explicitly forbidden in Exodus), you do not fulfill the requirements of faith in the Bible. This means that, even if you believe, you will not reap the benefits that the Wager supposes you will. The Wager fails you, yet again, because it does not delineate different forms of belief. ConclusionI have shown that there is no reason to give credibility to half of Pascal's Wager (for two reasons), and that belief as a result of the Wager is either excessive, irrelevant, or problematic. This demonstrates that the Wager is not a convincing reason to believe in God, and that, in any case, such belief would be problematic. I look forward to reading Con's case. Good luck!Sources1. https://medium.com... 2. http://www.dailygalaxy.com...3. http://www.amazon.com...4. http://www.bbc.co.uk...*All Biblical citations come from the NIV*