Pascal's Wager Fails to Support Theism

Ok, I understand. Oddly enough though, I had three topics on my mind which would take up this whole round. (*1) There are two categories of deities: changeable and unchangeable. Now, the Christians claim that their God is the unchangeable one, as they believe that God is perfect, and change implies imperfection. Now, there can only be one perfect, infinite God, and not more than one, because if there were two gods, one would have to have something that the other doesn't, implying an imperfection and finitude, else they would indistinguishably be one God. Now, if you look at the God who decides to change and go backwards, which is its own deity system which needs to be expanded to help show that it is reasonable (i.e. the details are hammered out), and is therefore not yet on the same level as the Christian God, whose details are more so hammered out. Now, as you said, your concept of a particular deity is one who decides to contradict itself (which requires imperfection and time, as it is a change). Now, if it contradicts itself and changes its mind once, what is to say that it don't contradict itself a second time? The same can be said for a third, fourth, fifth, and on and on to infinity. Now, I think that it is practically impossible for you to allow the deity to change once, yet to prove that there could be no such deity system to where there is more than one change (In addition, this doesn't even begin to address an argument that I have which gives evidence that a deity wouldn't be able to change, an argument that begins with the principle of cause and effect.) However, assuming it is true and assuming you can't show what I think is practically impossible, I have just nullified the negatives of any deity system which believes in a God or gods who changes their own mind on an issue. However, I have to show that your deity system does so in the first place. Well, I would say that if your deity system started by creating the universe, and it assumes that man was created by God, and therefore man was created as good, then it wouldn't make any sense for it to get angry at man when it gave man free will and reasoning, and man doesn't contradict reasoning in going to Church, as there was no reasonable sign saying otherwise that can easily be found out about and understood. So, since it doesn't make any sense, then it seems like God changed His mind for no apparent reason, and can therefore change it again for another "no apparent reason". As a side note, I also think Homer Simpson changes his mind for no apparent reason too, so I find it silly in how the authors (assuming they are pro-atheist) would try to give a serious point to practically the dumbest character that they portray. (2) Now, I also want to expand on my Version A wager to a Version C, anti-antitheist wager. I bring this up because some atheists are atheists because they are antitheists. So, here is the wager: If the Christian God exists, it would be better to assume that God isn't evil than otherwise, until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I say it this way because it is how the American judicial system works. Here is the reason why it works this way. Consider the following quote: "It is better for 1,000 guilty persons to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted." Why is that? Well, if one doesn't have a problem convicting innocent men, how big of an innocent pool would one be unwilling to convict for the sake of a guilty person? Wouldn't this become tyranny with leaders who want to take advantage of it to oppress their political opponents? In addition, it is unjust to convict an innocent man. However, it isn't unjust to unknowingly let the guilty man free, because if justice matters, it has to last past death. This can only occur with a just God. Otherwise, justice is frustrated by death and therefore loses its value. Now, it is still possible to catch a guilty person in other ways, especially if they don't change. The purpose of the penal system ought to be to get the guilty person to change their ways, not so much just so we can punish them. If we punish for the sake of punishing, which easily becomes unjust, then why not just punish everyone? Also, if we punish out of anger, then since anger, and emotions in general, tend to stray from reasoning if they aren't guided by reasoning, become a means to causing injustice. So, it more so sounds like you want to put God on trial. So, let me give this wager: assuming God exists, if you are right, that God does evil, then you are screwed anyway, whether you want to be with God or not, as you can't run or hide from Him. However, if you are wrong, then you are shooting yourself in the foot, and you end up acting like you know more than God, when you really don't, and you end up being dangerously irrational. Lastly, saying that God is evil doesn't disprove the existence of God altogether, and you will hurt yourself, to where a slight modification of Pascal's Wager actually applies in this specific case, and you pick wrongly. So, it is imperative that you give solid reasoning that is beyond a reasonable doubt, which by its nature, must be easy to see for those who can reason, or if God exists, you better give Him a chance to explain Himself, or you'll be irrational in one of the most important decisions you'll ever make. (3) Now, I want to expand on the idea of an atheist criticizing the Christian God for being bad. On the front of it, scrutinizing over which God is true is necessary and important. Now, being an atheist is itself dangerous. For atheists, a basic principle of their position is the problem of death. Some atheists say there is nothing after death. This is the group I am really talking too. However, for those atheists who say that there may be life after death, which position I recommend over saying that this doesn't exist, there is still the problem of explaining how this could be true, rather than having blind faith, blind hope. If you have blind faith in this though, then how would you be able to criticize religions just because they have blind faith? If you can believe in the existence of an afterlife, why not a particular afterlife (with the help of my criteria for picking the best religion)? If you have problems, that is still fine, just as long as you don't find any contradictions, meaning 2 2 = 5 and 2 2 = 4, but not necessarily that the laws of physics can't be broken, as how can you come back to life anyway without the laws of physics, especially if one's body decomposes in the meantime? Back to the atheists who say that there is nothing after death, some atheists criticize the Christian God because the Bible says things of God which sound bad. Ignoring how true or false it is, there is a problem for atheists who say that there is nothing after death. Those no-afterlife atheists can validly attack Christianity, but they should realize that their position effectively destroys ultimate justice, and that it won't matter what one does because in the end death will prevent negative consequences. Therefore, an atheist can't say how unjust theft is without contradicting atheism, because atheism says it won't matter. No-afterlife atheists can still say an action is unjust, it is just that they would have to believe that what they are doing is absurd in order to be consistent with no-afterlife atheism. That is a serious problem for no-afterlife atheists, because, though they don't encourage bad behavior, they can't discourage it in a reasonable way, a.k.a. avoiding absurdity. So, a no-afterlife atheist can't attack Christianity as a no-afterlife atheist, as it must admit that its own arguments are absurd. However, the Christian doesn't have to admit this. Therefore, the Christian wins by forfeit (However, I don't want to win the debate so much as develop my thought on these topics, so my partner-opponent can stay).