Pascal's Wager does not warrant for a belief in god (Read Description)

Thank you, again, KingDebater, for this exchange and the opportunity to grow in our thought and decision-making prowess. Pascal starts out with the famous "bet" by discussing our background beliefs of infinity and finites things which are measurable. There are things like infinite numbers which are numerical. [1] We know that every number must be even or odd. Yet infinite numbers are neither. [2] We are unaware of much concerning infinite numbers but we know of their existence. We understand finite things best because we are, in fact, finite creatures. We know some things like infinity and that there is a unity of infinity and finite things. Thus, we can know something very basic about an infinite god without having a great deal of intimate knowledge of him in the same way that we can know about an infinite number without knowing whether it is even or odd or whether such a thing is even possible. Pascal is emphatic that one can certainly know of the existence of a thing without knowing the particulars of its nature. [3] So, let's say that you have some idea of the existence of a thing or person, but you do not have much information beyond that. Someone approaches you and asks you to bet (hypothetically) and give a "yes" or "no" answer to the existence. "If you had to guess right now, what would you choose? Does the thing or person exist or not?" Let me illustrate with the following analogy: You live in a medium-sized city in the U.S. with a population of around 75,000. There are at least a hand-ful of landscaping businesses in that city. You have not lived there long and don't know all the landscaping businesses but you've heard a few names dropped in conversation before. You would like to hire a landscaper in the near future. A friend at work approaches you and states rather matter-of-factly: "Choose right now, yes or no. Does Dave's Landscaping Business, LLC., exist or not." This catches you off-guard. You think that you have seen a billboard somewhere where this business may have advertised but you are not certain. Also, you believe or suspect that someone has referred to this landscaping business in conversation. However, you don't know anything more than that. You have a pretty good but vague idea that Dave's Landscaping Business exists and that it probably provides landscaping services, given its title, but you could be mistaken. In fact, the billboard that you saw in passing might have read: "Rave's Landscaping Business" in which case your friend might be playing a little joke on you. But he insists that you answer right now: "Yes" or "No" to the existence of this business. You rely on your hunch that there is, in fact, a business with that title. "Yes," you say. "Correct!" he responds. "Now," he goes on. "You will hire that business to do your landscaping project, yes or no!" This seems absolutely ridiculous at this point. You tell him calmly that you are saving up to pay for landscaping work on your property but that you do not have the money right now. You are just exploring your options and haven't even begun to look at landscaping businesses or quotes. "I'll pay for it, the whole job," your friend then responds. "What?!?" you fire right back. "I mean it," he goes on. "I will cover the costs for your project." The whole thing seems too good to be true. But, unless your friend is simply pulling your leg, he is making an incredible offer. In this analogy, I've broken down the steps between just affirming the basic existence of something and going on to committing to a decision beyond mere affirmation of existence. You may have detected already that the friend who is offering to pay for the job is Jesus who has already paid the price for sins [future costs of the construction project]. He has the cash reserves [payment for the landscaping service] to cover the costs and you have to commit to a decision. You can legitimately waffle in your decision. Maybe the offer is too good to be true. Perhaps you will make the decision and even have your friend pay for it, but not like the work done on your yard. That's all possible. But you still have to choose for or against this particular offer. The other argument that I was introducing earlier, perhaps a little too early, is that we can act rationally and still bet against a particular outcome that we are fairly sure of. Let us suppose that I am about 95% certain that I will be able to drive successfully to my next appointment without getting into an accident or "fender bender." I am in my right mind...I don't believe that I have suddenly and inexplicably been brain-injured leaving me incompetent to drive...I am not intoxicated or under the influence. But I do bet against myself (rationally) when I have or pay for an automobile insurance policy. The person specified in the insurance contract, the insured, is betting that they will get into an accident when they provide payment to an insurance company, the insurer. The latter party is betting (confidently) that you will not get into an accident and that you will be in the right frame of mind when you drive. They do not want to pay out for an insurance claim, so they bet that you will not get into the accident. The former party is betting against themselves, even though they are rational to believe that they will, with almost absolute certainty, be able to drive without getting into an accident. Thus, the skeptic who is 95% sure that God does not exist could still rationally bet against the reliability of his own faculties and his prior judgments against the existence of God! That is, the skeptic can and should bet for the existence of God, even though he or she is convinced otherwise since he or she will insure themselves (and bet against themselves rationally) when he or she takes out an insurance policy. So, the person who, for whatever reason, holds that it is irrational to believe in the existence of God, unless they are 100% certain (and what human being with finite cognitive and memory functions would be in that position?), can and should bet on the existence of God since the funds are already provided for and there is no possibility of a deficit (no possible way that the positive bet will result in negative cash flow). Of course, the skeptic can waffle which is, in effect, making a negative decision. But is it rational for the skeptic to take this bet, given how they live the rest of their life? That is the real question. If the positive bet is not irrational, then there is no reason not to take the bet. Why bet one way for most of your life but bet against the existence of God simply on account of your prejudice? KingDebater, what is your choice? Even if you want to suspend indefinitely your judgment on the issues, how would you bet (hypothetically speaking)? Thanks again and I really look forward to the rebuttal period where we can clarify strengths and acknowledge weaknesses in our own (and other people's) arguments. Au revoir! [1] Donc il est vrai qu'il y a un infini en nombre, mais nous ne savons ce qu'il est. " "Therefore, il is true that infinite numbers exist without knowing what they are" [my translation], in Blaise Pascal, Pensees: Extraits (Paris, France: Librairie Larousse, 1933) 98. [2] Ibid. [3] "Or j'ai deja montre qu'on peut bien connaitre l'existence d'une chose sans connaitre sa nature"; Ibid.