The zero vs. one-or-more dichotomy hits the nail on the head. The problem with Pascal's wager is that its rationale can apply to every proposition. If you're

The zero vs. one-or-more dichotomy hits the nail on the head. The problem with Pascal's wager is that its rationale can apply to every proposition. If you're committed to err on the side of safety, you need to accept every possible non-falsifiable idea, because, hey, what if it's true? Taken to its logical conclusion, accepting Pascal's wager would at best generate immense amounts of cognitive dissonance as you attempted to integrate potentially infinite contradictory ideas into your worldview.