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.
Skywalk, I totally agree with you. Notice that the Pascal quote is in Italics. Typically here on FP that means one is quoting something said in a previous posting and then will (in the non-italics)comment on it. I was not the one who brought up the Pascal quote. And now it seems that me thinking another poster "foolish" for quoting it was wrong too... as that poster was merely using it as "irony". So I think that we are all now in agreement that Pascal was missing a few marbles the day he penned those words.
You know, this brings to mind the fact that some people (like Pascal) are so despirate to try to disprove the existance of God and Heaven and they will grasp at anything to make their argument.