Believing in the Christian God is like a lottery and the chances that God actually exists are so small that choosing not to believe in the Christian God is not advantageous compared to the certain advantages that come with not believing in the Christian God. By not believing in the Christian God you save the time you would have spent on religious activities, the money you would have spent donating to your religious cause and the chance to partake in the "poisonous pleasures" of life as Pascal himself said. It. It would be like saying that it is better to gain little or nothing rather than lose little or nothing in the bet that the Christian God is real, in this sense it would be more practical not to believe in the Christian God. Perhaps the most critical problem with Pascal's argument for belief in the Christian God is that he suggests that we can simply choose to believe in the Christian God by choice, when actually believing something is not as easy as saying yes or no. We develop our beliefs based on experience or evidence that allows us to believe something is true. Pascal suggests that a rational person can simply choose to believe in Christ, because he believes that choice to be the most rational