Pascal's Argument For God

Pascal says “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us’’ (Pascal, 2). Throughout Pascal’s argument he makes the constant notion believing in order to gain finite happiness, how is it possible to know if God is willing to provide this infinite gain if he is infinitely incomprehensible? This critical mistake is the very reason Pascal’s argument doesn’t work, we just don’t have the knowledge to know about what truly happens after death. Pascal makes his argument for God by noting “you must wager. It is not optional” (Pascal, 3). In which one has the choice of believing in God or not to believe in God, whether we want to risk the chances of infinite happiness or to rot
Ron Hubbard versus the Swami Maharishi” (Blackburn, 21). This leads to another problem in Pascal’s argument in that God is this entity that only believes that people of his faith are the ones that get to gain infinite happiness, if this God was a just and reasonable deity would he send kind-hearted non-believers into negative infinite happiness? It would make more sense for God to judge individuals for who they really are as a person rather than if they were to believe in God. As Blackburn says “ This is a God who will be pleasured and reward us for our attendance at mass, and will either be indifferent or, in the minus-infinity option, seriously discombobulated by our non-attendance” (Blackburn, 21). A God that only cares about trivial things that you do in this life like going to mass and reading the bible is really no God to be