It also requires one to mentally substitute “the beliefs of this one particular Christan sect” for “God”. If one doesn’t do that, the wager has no meaning. The point of the bet is that one is regretting a certain concept of the afterlife that is hardly to be found in all religions or all determinations of “God”.
In actuality the bet becomes: are the tenets of Pascal’s particular religion correct? The answer is so obviously “no” that it’s a bet anyone can take for any stakes required.
Also consider that if God exists and is truly omniscent then he knows our *motivation * for believing in him. If belief in him is merely to not go to Hell and you don’t maintain any other tenets of the religion - would you truly be saved?
Another significant flaw is the assumption that ‘believing in God’ automatically entails picking the right one - 'Oh, I believe in whichever God is listening" may not be specific enough, “Oh, I believe in Blodeuwedd” may be specific enough, but wrong.
I should point out that Pascal’s Wager isn’t intended to convince an agnostic to believe in God (unlike, say, Anselm’s ontological argument or Aquinas’ “Five Ways”) - it’s intended more as a counter to the atheist claim “Belief in God is irrational.”
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Epicurus)