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

I'm glad to see that he is interested in this topic very much. I'm not sure if what my opponent presented in the first round was simply an analysis, or actual arguments. But as stated in my opening round, round 2 Is the round for arguments so I believe it is most likely just analysis. Anyways, I'm happy to be debating theisticscuffles and hope he has fun =) ===================================================================== Although at first Pascal’s wager is quite convincing, it fails to take into account key factors, and ultimately fails. In this opening round, I'll be highlighting the problems with this argument, and why it doesn't hold up. I. Assumption of one god This reminds me of a famous Homer Simpson quote: “Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god, every time we go to the church we’re making him madder and madder! ” One of the many problems with the wager is that it assumes that its god (the Christian god) is the correct one. There are hundreds of different religions with many different gods and goddesses all with different heavens and hells (some don't even believe in heaven and hell), and among all of these is Christianity. The probability of Pascal's wager assumes that there are only two options. Belief leads to heaven, and non-belief leads to hell. However that's a classical fallacy in this case. For example, let's say you buy a lottery ticket. There are only two outcomes: you win or you lose. But does that mean you have a 50-50 shot at winning the lottery? Of course not; there are millions of other lottery tickets that might be chosen. Thus, considering the amount of religions in existence, it is unlikely that the god Pascal describes is the real one. Furthermore, the actual best bet is to not believe in a god at all. If you don't believe in one, than the god will probably be less angry than you than if you were to worship someone else. II. The ability to believe Another problem is that it assumes that people can make themselves believe in something. But is that really possible? If I told you that we found life on another planet, the first thing you would do is to search google to see if it's true. You would look for the evidence to be there, photos, videos, articles, scientific papers, etc. You would want to see for yourself. But if you had no access to anything and I just said it, could you really just blindly believe me? The truth is, you can't actually truly believe in anything on the inside without sufficient evidence changing your mind. Thus, Pascal’s wager just wants us to pretend to believe. Which brings me to my next point. III. Is it really that easy? Just pretending to believe? That's all it takes? Surely there is more to it than just believing. There are definitely Christians that go to hell too, right? Furthermore, if you forced yourself to believe, wouldn’t god see right through you? IV. Do you really have nothing to lose? While the wager assumes that I lose nothing by not believing, that isn’t the case. By conforming my beliefs, I have to spend precious hours of my time studying the bible (or whatever holy book), going to church (or whatever place of worship), etc. There are valuable parts of my life that would be taken away, or things that I would have to sacrifice because of following a particular god.