Here’s my take on the Pascal’s Wager analogy.

Early in Pascal’s argument, he attempts what’s known in decision theory as an argument from “superdomination”. It allows the arguer to avoid the messy business of assigning probabilities to the various outcomes (which fill up the boxes of the decision matrix). In decision theory, one option (let’s call it “A1” superdominates another (call it “A2”) when two conditions are met:

1) A1’s worst possible outcome is at least as good as A2’s best.
2) Choosing A1 is better than choosing A2 in at least one possible outcome.

Since the argument in the video does not involve assignments of probabilities to the various outcomes, it’s in effect an argument that A1 (taking action) superdominates A2 (not doing so). But it’s clear that this is false, since A1’s worst possible outcome has a high cost, while A2’s best possible outcome is a smiley face. That is, it fails the first condition for superdomination. So, as it stands, the argument fails.

Pascal also realized that his first run-through of his wager argument failed, and so turned to his more sophisticated argument, which involved assigning probabilities to the outcomes, as well as infinite negative utility to the worst case scenario. Then he could use the mathematics of expected utilities - where the expected utility of an outcome = its (positive or negative) value multiplied by its probability - for support. He was so sure of his argument’s soundness only because it didn’t matter what the probabilities were, as long as they were non-zero and the worst possible outcome of not believing when God exists had INFINITE negative utility, while that of believing had, at worst (when God doesn’t exist) finite negative utility. That’s where the parallel breaks down in the present case; since there are no infinite values to buttress the argument here, in this case both the values and the probabilities need to be discussed in detail, and this argument doesn’t begin to do that.

By the way, I support taking action, strongly. But the argument for doing so has to be better than this one.