Many arguments for the existence of God are deductive or inductive arguments. These same arguments are based on valid laws of inference and specific claims of knowledge. While these arguments might try to infer God with very different arguments that are built upon very different assumptions and methodologies, these arguments do have one thing in common, i.e. they argue for the existence of God based on specific propositions or ideas. Such arguments are known as epistemic arguments. Epistemic is from the Greek, episteme, or knowledge. While such arguments are valid in their construction, their soundness and cogency are a matter of great debate. You do not have to be a logician to know what is meant by the claim "these arguments lack cogency." Did you drop on your knees and yell "Halleluia!" after reading any one of the epistemic proofs -   probably not! But since we are debating the existence of God, an effective argument should be valid, sound, and cogent, and, have a personal impact on the reader.

Non-Epistemic proofs are arguments for the existence of God that are not knowledge-based arguments. If understood properly, the non-epistemic proof should invoke a personal response.  The power of Pascal's Wager is not found in valid rules of inference but in probability and possible outcomes. The Wager appeals to the gambler in us - not the philosopher. Other non-epistemic proofs have been formulated based on pragmacy, beauty, morality, and more.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

According to Pascal, we can conceive or our choice whether or not to believe in the existence of God as a wager. As in all bets, if we wager properly, then we stand to gain. If we wager improperly (or lose the bet), then we stand to suffer a loss.

The bet at hand concerns the existence of God. We can either bet on the existence of God or we can bet on the non-existence of God. But what would a gambler want to know before placing their money on the table? A gambler would probably want to know how much is at stake. Most bets are monetary. In this case, the gambler can think of her investment in terms of lifestyle choices. That is, those who do believe in God will act accordingly, e.g. no more late night parties, no more seeking of the good life, etc. Belief requires certain practices and orthopraxy - like when you want to watch football on Sunday morning but you have to attend Church. The next thing a gambler would want to know is the payoff/penalty. That is, how much will the gambler win potentially and how much will the gambler lose potentially. The Wager is often presented as follows:

Although "4" does pay well, it does not have as high a potential return as "1". Considering the consequences of "3" and the potential return of  "1" Pascal concludes that the most reasonable wager is to place your money on the existence of God. Even if you are wrong, the potential loss is minimal (see "2").

Sometimes the return or payoff is represented as follows: