Pascals Wager is not a logic fallacy

I will be rebutting from an interpretation of Pascals Wager that fits Case #2 “God is” is any god(s). Infinite reward still holds: Before dipping too specific into the potential reward or punishment different faiths, I think you showed that you agree they can range from Infinite Bad to infinite good. Weighing the sum of either still gives you a wager on “God is” having consequences that are potentially infinite in value against “God isn’t” where the only way to look at it is a very finite if anything loss. The wager still basically works out to were it makes no difference if your wrong about ‘God is’ but it makes all the world of difference if you wrong on wagering “God is not”. So while your actions and beliefs that you should pursue are made more complicated by considering all religions with any God, Any one of the faiths in a God stack up in a very similar fashion against there being no God.Further use of Game and Decision Theory with adding other faiths to the mix:When considering the further possible Gods if you consider there to be no reliable source of data to narrow down which is true with 100% accuracy you can actually further apply the principal behind Pascals Wager to those faiths. To be quick on the point for character space sake I will jump to using the Christian God against all other plausible Gods.1) Non-Christian Gods provide no answer to the problem of Sin 2) The Christian God is the only to provide a solution to the problem of Sin 3) Wager on Non-Christian God, Get eternal punishment to finite punishment for your sins if your right, and punishment if your wrong4) Wager on Christian God, feasible Sin solution available, gain infinite if right. Lose infinite if wrong In other words, do to the fact that your actions cant live up to what your faith will require as a Muslim you will suffer regardless right or wrong. And the same case can be made for most other faiths too as there are none with a sin solution. If you want to get into those specifics that’s a debate for another time though. There is no significant loss with wagering against atheism and losing: You suggested last round that there is a loss in wagering there is a god of some kind should there in fact be no god. Granted even you confessed it can ultimately be considered finite loss so it’s immaterial to the logic behind Pascal’s Wager. But consider my situation as a Christian focusing on this debate for a moment. If I’m wrong, then I just live a finite life in the state of joy most born-again Christians will tell you came with being closer to Jesus. I am motivated to do good charitable things because its what Jesus taught but I don’t stress out over the need to do them as my salvation does not rely on my works. Fact is I have only gained from trying to live a Christian life, and loosed nothing even if it turns out none of its true. I am freer from the addictive sinful things that enslaved me before I had Christ, I pursue my passions and dreams like there potentially a God given purpose. A child in Africa named Patrick eats because I give to food for the hungry. And well I could just go on, but basically there’s not an aspect of my life directly caused by my Christian faith that seems to be negative, there are only positives for both myself and others.