system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Pascal's Wager is ultimately meaningless because it ignores the existence of other religions.

Arguments for the belief in a god or gods fascinate me, but none have ever really made me question my agnosticism as much as Pascal's Wager.

&#x200B;

What immediately occured to me, however, is that the wager assumes that there are only two possibilities: the Christian God exists, or he doesn't, describing it at one point as a 'con flip'. However, the way I currently see it, there is no reason to rule out any other number of possible gods. In fact, one could even suppose that there an infinite number of such possible gods.

&#x200B;

I think logical proof should be answered with logical proof, so I drafted a quick counter argument. I am by no means a logican or a philosopher, so I fully expect there to be holes in my argument, and I would welcome criticism of it so that I can either improve it or discard it. I think arguments 10 and 11 are where this argument is weakest, and I’d love to hear suggestions for how to prove the probabilistic application of averages.

&#x200B;

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2. The existence of any God is unknowable.
3. Choosing the correct God provides infinite benefit.
4. Given that the existence of a God or Gods is unknowable, it is equally likely that there are an infinite number of gods as that there are no gods, or one god.
5. It logically follows from #3 that the set of all possible values for the number of gods is the set of all natural numbers. Since the existence of any given god in this set is unknowable, no number of gods can be more likely than any other.
6. Since the set increments at a linear rate, the median of the set is equal to the average.
7. The position of the median in a set can determined by dividing the size of the set by two.
8. Any infinite number divided by a finite number is infinite. (The limit of f(x)=x/n as x approaches infinity is infinity)
9. It could be said then, that the average value of this set is infinity.
10. In a universe where it could be proved that there were between one and three gods, it would be most logical to make probabilistic decisions assuming there are two gods, just as it is most logical to make decisions about dice considering the average result of that die.
11. Thus, it makes most sense to make probabilistic decisions assuming that there are an infinite number of possible gods.
12. If there are an infinite number of possible gods, the chance of choosing the right one approaches 0, just as the rewards from picking the correct one approach infinity.
13. If one has an infinitesimally small chance at an infinitely big reward, one can say that the expected value of the choice is undefined and that the reward is thus irrelevant.

&#x200B;

I'm pretty sure this makes sense, but if you disagree, then please, CMV.

&#x200B;

EDIT: I have to leave on a trip in few hours so I won't be able to continue commenting on this post. My apologies to all of the people who have posted thoughtful replies I won't have a chance to respond to. I have really enjoyed all of the fruitful discourse that has come of this. Thank you all!
gpt
That's not the real reason the wager sucks. The real reason is that it can be inverted.

Imagine a god that hates being worshipped. Anybody who worships him is punished with eternal pain. All others are rewarded. It is literally the same argument and the conclusion is that one must not worship any god. 

Since the argument proves both A and ~A it must be invalid.