Pascals wager is an extremely flawed argument. It boils down to the idea that whether there is a god or not, you may as well believe because if it turns out that if there is a god you win infinite reward, and if there's not then what's the loss?

However it presupposes that the Christian ideal of a god holds true, one that will reward you for belief and not reward you (or punish you for disbelief). There is a multidimensional spectrum of other options available. What if there is a god but (s)he created a mechanistic universe deliberately left behind no evidence, and so rewards those that use their critical thinking and form no belief? What if there's a benevolent god that rewards everyone regardless? What if you picked the wrong god and the real one hates wrong-believers more than atheists?

So it really only works in a situation where you have a binary choice, and that doesn't model the reality. In other words it's an exercise in apologetics written by someone who had already decided to believe, based on other criteria (or no criteria), trying to persuade others through a pseudo-rational argument.

I don't mean any of this as an attack on you, or as justification to look down on others' beliefs, but Pascal's Wager kinda grinds my gears :)