In short it's a decision matrix that says believing in god is a better choice than not believing in god. Being an atheist I have to admit it's about the most convincing argument I've ever seen, largely because it's purely logical. Here is the short of it:
God exists------God does not exist Wager for God-------Gain all--------Satus quo Wager against God---Misery----------Status quo
So it seems that you should always wager for God, right? Not so fast:
------------------- God_is_Good ---- God_is_Evil Wager for God: ------ Gain all - Become Undead Minion? Wager against God: - Status quo ------ Misery
Basically only an Evil (or at least malicious) God is going to punish you for not believing in things which are unprovable (God having MADE you in the first place).
So, do you really want to accept that God is Evil? And if God is Evil, what exactly are you going to gain?
This immediately brought to mind Pascal's Wager (Score:3, Interesting)
God exists------God does not exist
Wager for God-------Gain all--------Satus quo
Wager against God---Misery----------Status quo
Read all about it here. [stanford.edu]
Please excuse the horrible formatting, I suck at html.
Re:This immediately brought to mind Pascal's Wager (Score:3, Funny)
------------------- God_is_Good ---- God_is_Evil
Wager for God: ------ Gain all - Become Undead Minion?
Wager against God: - Status quo ------ Misery
Basically only an Evil (or at least malicious) God is going to punish you for not believing in things which are unprovable (God having MADE you in the first place).
So, do you really want to accept that God is Evil? And if God is Evil, what exactly are you going to gain?