I am a Christian and I guess the closest I have come to something like Pascal's Wager is to assure people that I will have no regrets whatsoever if I find out that I was duped about Jesus.
I don't think that the people you use this on need to be reassured of your lack of regret.
Which then begs the question...just who are you trying to convince?
I don't think Christians use Pascal's Wager for their own benefit. I think they use it for the benefit of those who claim to have all kinds of logical reasons why they should not accept God in Christ.
C.S. Lewis was a athiest before he became a disciple of Jesus. Very thoughtful people like Lewis come up with things like Pascal's Wager to challenge those who have supposedly many reasoned arguments why they should not accept God in Christ as Lord and Savior.
That's all well and good until you encounter someone who can poke several holes in the "logic" of the wager.
The wager is full of fallacies. Only someone unable to recognize the fallacies and agree with you based on fear of the Christian hell will fall for it.
So, again...who are you trying to convince?
It seems like an argument to try to convince oneself of their own rightness without having to think about it too hard. Which, if true, blows your argument of it not being for personal benefit out of the water, no?
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2
