Ahhhhh, then I do apologise for thinking it was you who was "foolish"... the title goes to Pascal, by all means.
I cannot believe people are still using Pascal's Wager in Christian apologetics anymore. I suspect that sophisticated apologists do not as it was always so vulnerable to anything resembling logic.
It's very simple, Pascal assumes that the choice is between belief in Christianity and non-belief. Therefore he makes his argument that it is better to believe and face oblivion, than to not and face hell. That might be fine, if there were only one religious vision in this world.
However, what if some extinct non-Christian religion(Mithraism as an example) was correct? What if Islam is the true religion? Or what if only ONE brand of Christianity is accepted as divine currency by the "Almighty" but not the others? What if Buddhist thought is the truth? Then all theists have been wasting their time. You see here the flaws inherent in Pascal's argument.
As brilliant as Pascal was, his "Wager" never should have been made public. It damages his reputation.