Ahem. If I may interupt the debate?
I can smell a great big rat...
Let's see: noob copypast (ahem) posts a tl;dr "take" on a topic which turns out to be a regurgitation of Pascal's Wager, but doesn't mention it. Simulatedworld (ahem) goes on to expand upon Pascal's Wager (despite Kalach having done so in an interesting and succinct way) and uses Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument, without making specific reference to the fact - a crime as bad as (so-called) copypaste's original faux pas.
Set 'em up and knock it down, eh? It's been done better than this, don't you think?
You have failed, simulatedworld & copypaste. And you, sir, are an idiot.