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

Thank you for your arguments. In this round, I will rebut your case.=================================================================================A summary of my opponent's 1st argument here:I honestly did not get the point of my opponent's first argument. If I understand it correctly, then I believe that this is a good summary:- We can believe in that something exists, even if we don't know the minor details- Then he draws an analogy in which I know very little about a new city, and that a friend asks me if "Dave's Landscaping Business " exists.- I have a choice here, and I say yes.- He says my decision is correct.- He then asks if I should hire this business- I say i'm still exploring options, and he says he will pay for it.- Best thing to do here is to agree to this decision. He could be lying, but I won't lose anything. If he's telling the truth, then I'll get a great amount of gain. A summary of my opponent's 2nd argument here:- You decide to drive to your next appointment- You aren't under the influence, or brain injured, etc.- You are 95% sure you will make it, but you still pay for insurance.- One cannot be 100% sure that god doesn't exist, thus they should bet in favor of god. It's possible not to bet in favor of god, but that's not the most rational decision.Rebuttals:I honestly believe that the first and second arguments are both trying to prove the same idea. That's why I will be specifically be adressing the second argument. However, by adressing the second, I'm sure that I will have successfully proven the flaws of the first one wrong as well, as they are both getting at the same basic principle.While my opponent's analogy may look like Pascal's Wager on the surface, there are a few key differences between his analogy, and what Pascal's Wager proposes. I will rebut this by using the arguments that I presented in my own case in round 2.Con believes that even if I am 95% sure, there is still a possbility of a car accident, and so I should [bet against my self and] accept the insurance policy, because that way, no matter what happened, I would end up being ok. Now this makes sense. He then goes on to say that even if I am 95% sure God doesn't exist, I should [bet against myself] and still believe in him because I would be insuring myself by doing so. But am I really? You see, with the case of insurance, we are (theoretically) 100% sure that if an accident does happen, the insurance company will save me. But if I believe in god, am I 100% that God will save me?Not exactly. Things are a bit more complicated than that, and this arrises mainlty due to God being a very unclear thing to believe in. As I stated in my own opening arguments, which god do I believe in?Suppose I believe in Thor, would I be given myself 100% insurance? What about Allah? Would that give me 100% insurance? What about Krishna? What about the Christian God? There are thousands of religions, each with their own gods and godesses (some being monotheistic and some polytheistic), with diffrent heavans and hells for each single one.In reality, the chances of you believing in the correct god are very slim, and the chances of any god existing is very slim as well. Now, from a skeptic's point of view; he has thousands of gods to chose from, and he doesn't know which one is right, so what does he do?Well, It's possible that he could just take a completely random guess, but how rational is that? Furthermore, if he were to believe in no god, theoretically, wouldn't that be better? If you think about it, not believing in any god, and then being confronted by Allah, is probably going to be a heck of a lot better than confronting Allah when you've been a devout Christian your whole life.Now, addressing the idea that there is no possible defecit; to me there is a clear deficit. I have to give up much time and many valuable aspects of my life in order to "believe" in this God. As far as I'm concerned, i'm living the one life that we both know I have, and sacrificing it for a life that I have a very very slim chance of having isn't worth it.I put the word "believe" in quotes because there is no way you can actually believe in something unless there is sufficient evidence for it (or I suppose unless you were brainwashed). The example I used in my opening argument is a good one. If I told you that we had found life on another planet, how would you just blindly believe me? You would most certainly ask for some type of proof?For me, I ask for proof of god, and if there is no proof, I simply can't believe in him. I don't see how it's possible to change my view, unless I'm provided with certain evidence. But, I suppose there is the idea of just beating it into my head. It's possible that if I actually think that I believe in god, it will eventually get to the point where I will have brainwashed myself into belileving he exists. But this leads to another problem.How would god not see through me at that point? It would be so obvious that I was a fake believer all along, and would just send me to hell anyway. So why even bother?Answering my opponent's question: I would bet to not believe.And I think the reasoning I have explained is quite sufficient.===============================================================================Thank you.