Pascal's Wager

The first time I heard Pascal's Wager, the flaws in his reasoning were clearly apparent. It amazes me that anyone still takes it seriously. But it crossed my mind today, so I checked Wikipedia today to see what they had on it. I was surprised to find that they don't mention the most obvious problem with the argument. Even if we grant Pascal's claim that heaven represents a reward of infinite value, the expectation value of belief is only infinite if the probability of god's existence is non-zero. If the probability of god's existence is zero, then the expectation value of belief is also zero, which means Pascal has made a bad bet. Pascal gives no evidence to support the idea that there is a non-zero probability that god exists. To be fair, neither has anyone else.

But, just for fun, let's kick the crap out of Pascal's Wager by taking the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations to its logical extreme. According to that objection, since there are multiple inconsistent god claims, Pascal's Wager can be applied equally to any of them, leaving us with no reason to choose one religion over another. But there's no reason to stop with the finite set religions that currently exist. There is no logical reason to prefer an existing religion to a new one we make up tomorrow. New religions are created all the time. In fact, the number of possible religions is infinite. But if the number of possible religions is infinite, then in the limit the probability that any one of these religions is correct goes to zero. Which means that even within the logic of Pascal's Wager, the promise of heaven made by his god is worthless. But then, we already knew that, didn't we.