Pascal's wager is really the wrong tool for discovery anyway isn't it? The scientific method is the best guideline we have for finding out the truth about an hypothesis.
Using the scientific method I would examine evidence and invoke controls and blind studies to ensure that my desires and biases do not cloud the answer. Unfortunately, there is no unimpeachable evidence to consider or test with god.
So then we must simply counter the anecdotal evidence evidence of ancient unknown bible writers with our own current observations. Bible writers say god is huge, active, and omnipresent. Billions of modern humans, including most of us here, say god is not observable at all, therefore not "huge, active, or omnipresent."
So for the human decision making methods that we employ every day to decide to "eat this, do that, or go there," we decide to reject the hypothesis that there is a god who is so interested in the skin on the end of my penis.
Using the scientific method I would examine evidence and invoke controls and blind studies to ensure that my desires and biases do not cloud the answer. Unfortunately, there is no unimpeachable evidence to consider or test with god.
So then we must simply counter the anecdotal evidence evidence of ancient unknown bible writers with our own current observations. Bible writers say god is huge, active, and omnipresent. Billions of modern humans, including most of us here, say god is not observable at all, therefore not "huge, active, or omnipresent."
So for the human decision making methods that we employ every day to decide to "eat this, do that, or go there," we decide to reject the hypothesis that there is a god who is so interested in the skin on the end of my penis.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
