I've always considered the problem with Pascal's wager to be that it considers "belief" to be free, or at least not a major cost to the individual.

But given the multitude of different rules that various religions impose that's not true. Clearly actually following even one possible god's prescriptions is quite difficult, as evidenced by the fact that even most genuine believers don't do so.

God is not mocked!
Whatever you fake, even if you're just faking it in the hope that you'll eventually make it, if He exists, He knows.
Which do you think He would despise more, sincere doubt or false belief?

Indeed.

With Pascal’s wager, it seems better to act as though God exists, praying daily, attending church, etc. Even if God does not exist, you lose less than if He does exist, but you act as though He doesn’t. — Katiee

The wager is a pretty shallow and ineffective idea. For a start, what if Allah is real and you are praying to Yahweh? Or what if Brahma is god but you're banking on Jesus? Or what if Yahweh subscribes to Presbyterian sectarianism and thinks Catholicism is condemnable heresy and you are posing as a Catholic?

It's hard to see how insincere praying can work out for the phoney who thinks with gods (and who is to say there's only one deity?) that you can fake it until you make it. If god is omniscient are they not likely to see through your posturing and regard you as a contemptible putz?

The wager is a pretty shallow and ineffective idea. For a start, what if Allah is real and you are praying to Yahweh? Or what if Brahma is god but you're banking on Jesus? Or what if Yahweh subscribes to Presbyterian sectarianism and thinks Catholicism is condemnable heresy and you are posing as a Catholic? — Tom Storm

Yes. Even in Christianity, some denominations say they have the means of salvation and other Christian denominations do not. So, Pascal's wager becomes Pascal's lottery - spin the wheel to pick which religion and which denomination to believe in and then hope to God you've picked right.

With Pascal’s wager, it seems better to act as though God exists, praying daily, attending church, etc. — Katiee

Ah, but Pascal picked one of the few options where acts (deeds) don't get you the prize. Jesus paid the price for all that, so true (not feigned) belief is enough. Kind of gives one an open license to sin or at least to not bother with any of the public acts mentioned above.

The wager is a pretty shallow and ineffective idea. For a start, what if Allah is real and you are praying to Yahweh? Or what if Brahma is god but you're banking on Jesus? — Tom Storm

I think Pascal would have thought of that. It indicates to me that he actually already held a true belief in one particular choice (probably the one of his local culture), and the wager was put out there as a way to justify this belief despite the lack of it being a rational choice. So the wager is a rationalization of that actually held irrational belief.

I can't prove that, but if it isn't true, then why are not all the other belief options (FSM? Too early for that) considered?

I think Pascal would have thought of that. It indicates to me that he actually already held a true belief in one particular choice (probably the one of his local culture), and the wager was put out there as a way to justify this belief despite the lack of it being a rational choice. So the wager is a rationalization of that actually held irrational belief. — noAxioms

I think he also believed in/hoped for social stability and good order, which in his time and mind was represented by a unified Catholic church. (Islam and Judaism were not even to be considered as possible choices, as Christian Europe was at constant hostilities with both of those infidel camps - as well as within itself.) and the pagan religions had been wiped out.
If only belief in God could bring the Protestants and the enlightenment skeptics back into the fold, all those wars and witch-hunts could be over. So he wrote extensively about Christianity as whole, and the role of faith in man's salvation.

Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is.

Another thing to consider is why would God care if you believe in him? If God is an all powerful knowing being, what does it matter to him? And if it DID matter to him, why would he not just show everyone? The idea that you have to believe in God despite there being a massive lack of evidence for God sounds like a cruel game from a divine being.

Some argue that Pascal’s wager fails because it ignores the importance of belief in theism. They say that the wager says one should weigh out the options of theism and atheism, then choose which to follow. — Katiee

Hey Katiee!

I think there are quite a few arguments for why Pascal's Wager fails that don't even require one to submit to Pascal's Wager in the first place. Although it certainly does seem misguided to For example, there's the "many gods" objection.

Laid out, it essentially comes down to the following:
1: If Pascal's Wager is a valid argument for belief in God, then it should provide a rational basis for determining which god to believe in.
2: Pascal's Wager does not provide a rational basis for determining which god to believe in.
3: Therefore, Pascal's Wager is not a valid argument for belief in God. (1,2 MT)

To explain why premise 1 is true, consider someone who needs to decide whether to believe in the Christian God, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Each of these deities comes with its own set of rewards and punishments, making the decision more complicated than what Pascal's Wager originally suggests.

Suppose that Pascal's Wager provides sufficient reason for believing in the Christian God. Accepting this premise means that an individual must also accept the potential rewards and punishments offered by Christianity. Makes sense, but what if other gods exist, like Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The existence of other gods and religious belief systems introduces additional sets of rewards and punishments to consider. As a result, following Pascal's Wager would also require belief in alternative deities to avoid their respective punishments and obtain their rewards. This could become even more difficult if their punishments and rewards were of a similar caliber and not easily dismissible.

Such belief in multiple, contradictory deities is logically incoherent. Thus, Pascal's Wager cannot be a sufficient reason for believing in the Christian God, as it would lead to the absurd conclusion that one should simultaneously believe in incompatible deities.