ey are correct, while the losses will be insignificant if it's false (0). If it's true and you have rejected it, you've lost everything and you have the potential of going to hell. However, if it's false but you have believed it, at least you've led a good life and you haven't lost anything. Nevertheless, the unbeliever might say it's better not to choose at all. Not so, says Pascal. You're going to live one way or the other, believing in God or not believing in God. You must choose and through rationality you must choose the existence of God because if you don't wager you automatically bet against God and have a .5 probability of nothing happening or worst case scenario damnation.
             In the next argument he reinforces the rational thinking by giving different examples of his formula where it is one life that is wagered and there is the potential to win two or three lives. This is done to illustrate in terms other than infinite and zero. It shows that you are rationally required to wager because your loss is zero and your gain is three lives if you win. That was a hypothetical case to show that you are even more rationally required to bet for God in the original wager because your prize is not three lives but infinite happiness and heaven.
             Then comes Pascal's final argument in which he focuses on ways for the nonbeliever to gain faith in their wager for the existence of God if they choose too. Pascal says our inability to believe is a problem of our emotions. It is then stated that we shouldn't look for more evidence in order to gain faith but to try to control our emotions. He then goes on to say that by doing this you will become a better person because you are now moral, true, just, honest, and an all around good person. The emotions he speaks of controlling are the poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury. Then if you continue on this path you will come to realize that you wagered on a sure thing and will receiv...