Pascal's Wager Fails to Support Theism

Due to realizing certain things, as mentioned in the comments, I want to give my own version of Pascal's Wager (and even my own critique of Pascal's Wager). (Pardon for any improper double quotes, Debate.org switched single to double) Now, I claim that it is better to wager in a religion than to wager in atheism or be neutral. Now, I want to begin by looking at Pascal's Wager, then simplifying it before going on to my wager. So, here is Pascal's Wager: (1) There is a God, you choose God (2) There is a God, you don't choose God (3) There is no God, you choose God (4) There is no God, you don't choose God Options (3) and (4) are trivial, as it doesn't matter which one you choose if there is no God. So, all that is left for me to try to show is that (1) > (2). Before I look at that, I want to look at this question. Why is it not that if you choose (2) you go to Hell, and if you choose (1) you go to Heaven? It isn't the Catholic version. I actually have two Catholic versions I would like to discuss. Here is version A: (1) There is a God, and you are open to accepting and choosing God if He exists and you end up meeting Him (after death). (2) There is a God, and you are against choosing God and being with Him if He exists and you end up meeting Him (after death). I talk about version A as version B will be measured by how successful it follows version A, which I would say is the main reason in Catholicism for following it. I just have to show how it is true. Note that other religions likely have different wagers, since they have different objectives. That can be measured on a religion-by-religion basis. However, what is more important is determining what the probabilities are for each religion. I have a method of dealing with this that I will explain later. But before I do that, I want to answer the question of why the Catholic version is true over Pascal's version? Now, I am assuming that Christians believe that God is Love and God is Justice. If that is the case, then God wouldn't be Love itself if God refuses to give Himself to everyone. For example, what about the Native Americans? What about the Chinese? What about those who didn't get to know Christianity that well? Also, if God is Justice, then how would this be unjust if they never had a chance to choose Christianity for what it is? I think what is meant is the Catholic version. Christians (and Catholics) believe that only those who are baptized will enter Heaven. However if one says (1), what is to stop them from being baptized if they meet up with God as (1) says, after death? Otherwise, God wouldn't be Love itself, contradictory to what Christians believe. Now, I will assume that my opponent agrees with version A. If not, I will be fine with giving my reasoning as to why (1) > (2). I'm also pressed for space, so that is also a factor. Note that one can ask what one gains and loses by choosing (1) or (2). Now, here is a way of determining what the probabilities are for each religion. My goal is for this way to use just reasoning. So, the question to ask is what are the probabilities? Well, one can start with a beginning probability: the probability that a religion is true based off a person's testimony. This should rightly carry little weight. Now, if there was no way to add more weight, then I don't know how I would convince an atheist to search for religions, as a few of them are terrible. I try to say that from the perspective of reason, rather than from my Catholic faith. Here is what I mean. The way to add more weight to a religion (lots of weight) is for it to keep natural reasoning intact. It should also keep natural truths intact as well, like science. For example, human persons should be seen as valuable, with amazing potential, because all humans share in this ability, even though there may be roadblocks to having this potential realized. Lastly, the religion shouldn't internally contradict itself. Doing it this way should remove the bad religions while preserving the good religions. Religion shouldn't destroy man, but help man realize his potential. Now, one may ask me, "But what if one of those bad religions turn out to be true?" Well, I initially didn't know how to respond to that. However, I have come to the conclusion that using the reasoning that I gave in the last paragraph, if not all of it, at least the parts about science and no contradictions, should be evidence against a religion from being true. So, if it is true, it would be true despite the probability, not because of the probability. Otherwise, we would be guessing in the dark. Not only that, but there is a rule in gambling probability that I made up that you don't gamble in the thing which gives the lowest value of this formula: probability * gain if won. Nevertheless, that last sentence sounds a bit unclear with referring to religions, and I am currently not interested in calculating an answer, so I don't want this counted in my argument. I just want to make the point that, assuming equal gains if won, it's not wise to pick the smallest probability. Now, I gave theory, but I need to give at least one religion that can go above this, lest my argument be incomplete. I propose my own faith of Catholicism, at least. Now, this is where my thinking gets narrowed down to my faith's perspective. So, imagine we were God of the Catholic faith, and we wanted to be known without revealing ourselves (as that seems to be the truth of the matter, at least while on Earth). Now, we as God would see the dangers of man-made religions based off of a claim of someone who has no right to do so. So, how would we get around that? Well, here is the system I would propose. (1) We should announce our coming, as many of the man-made religions don't have this. This means having it in writing, the more the merrier. (2) We should have that person we send do miracles. (3) We shouldn't contradict reasoning [I got this idea from Archbishop Fulton Sheen's work, "Life is Worth Living"]. Now, here is version (B): (1) There is a God, and you search for God. (2) There is a God, and you don't search for God. If (B1) makes one more likely of achieving (A1), then (B1) > (B2). Here is an explanation of this. If religion is something attractive, then people will be more likely to choose (A1). If religion is something repulsive, then people are more likely to choose (A2). Also, if religion is something reasonable, then people will be more likely to choose (B1), which I think implies a desire for God, else why search, meaning that (B1) implies (A1), which is another way of saying the explanation in the previous paragraph (notice the link between "attractive" and "desire"). (Sort of) Concluding Section: For the probabilities of each religion, if there are religions with a greater magnitude of a percentage of being correct, then those religions should be looked at in determination of this. What I mean here is that if there is a religion that can break above the sphere of merely a human suggesting an idea, then those religions should be in a higher category and labeled, "reasoned-probability religions," if there is a way to show that it is more than just a man's idea. Now, if a religion contradicts itself internally, then that is a reason to put it on a lower plane of probability. So: Reasoned-probability religions (reason for, which includes having no reason against) > man's-idea religions (no reason for or against) > inwardly-contradictory religions (reason against). Note that the reasons here should be solid and practically, provably true. Probabilistic reasons make the comparisons more complicated. So, I hypothesize that if one only looks at those religions which are "reasoned-probability religions," then it will be worth searching there. And yes, just trying to use reason without my belief in my faith took a decent amount of effort, and I'm not even confident that I didn't leave an implicit religious assumption in here.