In this article I will talk about Pascal's Wager. What I intend to do first in this article is to explain the topic of Pascal's Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal's argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms demonstrate that Pascal's reasoning is untenable. Pascal's Wager is an argument that seeks to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of the Christian god. Pascal thinks that non-theists should believe in the existence of God because if a non-theist is wrong about the existence of God he has much more to lose than if a theist is wrong about the existence of God. Pascal begins his argument by stating that everyone they must believe in the existence of God. make a bet. The bet everyone makes is whether God exists or not. Pascal believes that everyone must make a bet based on two reasons: everyone eventually dies and God is a possible being. Of the two choices a person can make, there are four possible outcomes that could happen to them as a result of the choice made. The first possible outcome is that a person chooses to believe in God and God exists. If this is true, then the believer will suffer some harm in this life but will be rewarded with salvation in the afterlife. The second possible outcome is that a person chooses to believe in God and God does not exist. If this is true, then the believer will suffer some harm in this life and will not be rewarded with anything when he dies, but he will not be punished either. The third possible outcome is that a person chooses not to believe in God and God exists. If this is true, then even though non-theists will be rewarded in this life, they ... middle of paper ... which is why Pascal seemed to think it was not necessary to recognize that there are more belief systems then agnosticism, atheism, and Christianity . It is this lack of reasoning as to why we should bet on the existence of the Christian god over the gods of Hinduism or the god of Islam that makes Pascal's argument so weak. The only conclusion I think one can come from Pascal's argument is that it is more advantageous for someone to believe in at least a higher power than to be an agnostic or atheist. Even if one recognized the existence of some sort of higher being or beings, this would still do no good to an individual because the ability to select the true belief system from an infinite number of possible belief systems makes it very unlikely that anyone would ever do the right choice. In conclusion, I think Pascal's Wager is a very weak argument.