I don't think it matters, the argument is not about what's right or wrong in the logical sense of those terms, it is a valuation which can be either assigned or not assigned to a belief. If you believe there is nothing after death then it's not worth your wager, if you believe there is even an infinitesimal chance that belief in God will save you for an eternity, then it is worth the wager.

I am pointing out that belief in god is not enough.
You have to also believe god is reasonable and rational and will save you.

Believing in an irrational and unreasonable god brings you nothing.

And if god expects you to believe in irrational and unreasonable things then god is not reasonable and rational.

If there is no benefit to your belief then Pascal's wager fails, and if god is unreasonable and irrational you cannot be sure there is any benefit to your belief.

Ok, all along I have stated it is a belief in a Good God.

I don't know; I can't answer from experience, because I remain untransformed. I think openness is necessary. Maybe faith comes in degrees ranging from mere lip service (which would not seem to qualify as faith at all though) to a completely transforming fire.

Incidentally your two alternatives sound kind of the same.

I have pointed out that belief in god brings you nothing if god is unreasonable and irrational.
You gain nothing if that is true, which would mean Pascal's wager fails.

and if God is good.

We can't know if god is consistently good if god is unreasonable and irrational.

that's why we wager our belief, we gain nothing if we are wrong and we lose nothing by wagering it.

Ah, comfort. But see, for some people, truth trumps comfort.

This is not a logical argument...value judgements are not T/F are they?

If you believe in the wrong God, then you could be roasting in the hell of another religion.

Either way you roast

We do lose something if we are expected to believe in irrational and unreasonable things.
We lose reason and rationality.

They are.

What's the other way?

The wager is in terms of what you believe God to be, not in terms of what he is; which is unknowable.The terms of the wager are that you believe that there either is or is not a God who will grant you eternal life if you believe in Him. The terms of the wager could be changed such that the conditions of the granting of eternal life are loving others as oneself or genuinely striving to do so. But it would seem reasonable to think there must be a God to grant the eternal life, and that you would not believe that loving others as yourself would result in eternal life unless you believed in God.

This is not a logical argument, it is not a question of discursive logic.

Trouble with that is, we don't know the Truth, or even if there is one.

The wager fails if god does not provide salvation, which we would have no way to be sure if god is unreasonable and irrational.

If it is not a logical argument then how is that you can claim Pascal's wager is valid?

You are completely missing the point with an irrelevant quibble.

I don't think it matters, you believe in what you understand, what you have been taught about God, if it is wrong then it is wrong, but if it is even a tiny bit right it is a home run.

No I am making a point of my own.

There are four results that are possible.
You do not believe and gain nothing.
You do believe and gain nothing.
You do believe and gain salvation.
You do not believe and gain salvation.

The only way you gain something from belief is if god is reasonable and rational and does reward salvation for belief, and in which case god would not expect me to believe in irrational and unreasonable things before that god rewards me with salvation.

What doesn't matter? The truth? No, I'm afraid it does, to me at least. You appear content in assenting to a proposition whose truth you do not know and have not established for a benefit whose possibility is equally unknown; and this because the alternative is to feel "uncomfortable." Again, why should comfort matter and outweigh the truth?

Logical arguments are not the only type of argument, value judgements can also be valid, but not on the same terms as logical arguments, because there are no undeniable objective values or viewpoints, and I think appling T/F to value judgement conclusions is a mistake.

I'm also curious as to the degrees this wager can take in terms of practice. Is it just belief that you wager? What about a particular religion? Do you, in addition to belief, wager that one religion is true, and then within that, that one sect is true? Are we to find Cavacava kneeling in some house of worship one odd day a week?

To this point then.

Imagine that you value rationality and reason and the Pascal's wager is posed to you?

Do you see how the person that values reason and rationality has something to lose from believing in a god that is irrational and unreasonable?

Actually Agustino brought up the practicality, which may or may not be effective on atheists but I think there is a good chance to knock some agnostics off the fence. War also tends to favor belief over non-belief.

The thing is I value life more than reason/rationality, what if you win an argument and lose your soul? :o

So, are we going to find you on the pew somewhere?