Pascal's Wager is not logically valid

It is my contention that the argument in favor in the belief of God known as "Pascal's Wager" is not logically valid. I will start with a brief summary of Pascal's Wager from Wikipedia, though I assume that my opponent will be at least somewhat familiar with it. Pascal's Wager: Pascal begins with the premise that the existence or non-existence of God is not provable by human reason, since the essence of God is "infinitely incomprehensible". Since reason cannot decide the question, one must "wager", either by guessing or making a leap of faith. Agnosticism on this point is not possible, in Pascal's view, for we are already "embarked", effectively living out our choice. We only have two things to stake, our "reason" and our "happiness". Pascal considers that there is "equal risk of loss and gain", a coin toss, since human reason is powerless to address the question of God's existence. That being the case, we then must decide it according to our happiness... by weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists. He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. Pascal recognizes that the wagerer is risking something, namely his life on earth, by devoting it to one cause or another, but here he uses probabilistic analysis to show that it would be a wise wager even if one were to gain only three lives at the risk of losing one. Considering that everyone is forced to wager and the potential gain is actually infinite life, it would be acting "stupidly" not to wager that God exists. The problem with this argument is largely one of false premises. First, it assumes that human reason cannot address the question of God's existence. In fact, human understanding of logic is sufficient to address this issue. If we have premises concerning God (which humans have in abundance), we can create arguments for or against his existence. Disregarding the first false premise, we have the second false premise: that the belief in God results in a net gain. It assumes that the belief in God does not result in any harm to one's life on earth. However, it can be argued that it most certainly does. When a person believes that God is always watching and judging him, he is bound to try not to indulge in certain pleasurable behaviors that have been deemed sinful. If God does not exist, he has denied himself these pleasures for nothing and has irrevocably lessened the experience of his life. Furthermore, Pascal fails to adequately address the odds of this wager. He assumes that the odds are in the favor of the existence of God, even though he has also assumed that reason cannot address this issue. This argument also assumes that the correct god is worshipped with the correct method. There are innumerable gods that have been created by humanity. Furthermore, there have religions created that technically worship the same deity, but have different methods and variations in theology. An example of this is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The correct god and religion is either one in particular or not known to humanity at all. If one believes in one god and religion, but not the right one, the argument cannot be applied. This argument also assumes that God, if he exists, rewards belief. It is entirely possible that God is indifferent to belief. Since it is assumed that God would be infinitely incomprehensible, it cannot be simultaneously assumed that we can know how he feels about human belief.