Yes, the assumption that believing in a god that doesn't exist is only a minor negative in life is wrong and therefore the whole wager falls flat on its face. Of course, each person decides this on their own, but we know without any doubt that it's not a generalisation that can be made about everyone or even a significant percentage of people. We know this due to numerous counterexamples (myself included). In fact, it's purely opinion and conclusions simply cannot be based upon this assumption.
Your opinion is valid, but your reasoning is circular. You're basically saying there's no way there is a hell, so there isn't a good reason to avoid hell.
The argument is that a life fully wasted on false assumptions is still better than an eternal hell.
The same reasoning can be used to discount all sorts of black swan events, including programming becoming unviable some day, if we want to come back on topic. Pascal was basically arguing for respecting the ultimate black swan event, with the understanding that infinities skew any pragmatic calculations.
No, that's not my argument at all. I said nothing at all about hell. I have no idea where you got that from, but surely not from my post.
My argument is that believing in a god that doesn't exist is much more than the mere inconvenience that Pascal makes it out to me. It actually degrades life to the point where it might not be worth living. This is, of course, an evaluation that one can only make for themselves, but one that many have made.
I'm saying that believing in god simply on the off-chance that he might exist, is vengeful, wrathful, and a piece of shit (as described in the bible) and will judge you on petty shit (as also described in the bible) in exchange for a life that's not worth living, where suicide is the best option, is not a wager any sane person would take. If it was as Pascal says, a minor inconvenience at worst, then Pascal's wager would make sense. Since it is a life-altering change that leads to one of the lowest possible qualities of life, then the wager no longer makes sense as the person faced with the wager now has to live a horrific life on the infinitesimally small, asymptotically to zero chance that said god above might exist.
And that's before you get to the possility that if a god might exist, other gods might exist. How do I know that believing in the Christian god (which Pascal's wager is based upon) won't send me to hell when the Islamic god judges me. Or Zeus. Or Mars. Or Aphrodite. Or the Jewish god. Is he the same? No one knows. Or maybe an Aztec god. Or one of the thousands of religions of the world that have gods. Or some other imaginary deity. So which one should I believe in when I can only choose one out of thousands? Pascal and the entire church don't make a case for their god being the one in over two thousand pages of ranting.
Pascal's wager is beyond fucking absurd. Then again, the idea of god itself is beyond fucking absurd as well. Especially for someone sane who wants to live their life as best as they can, not based on some imaginary wager and imaginary forces.
