system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Pascal's wager, if taken at face value, proves that Christianity is the logically wrong choice.

For those that aren't familiar, Pascal's wager is an argument made by the 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal that essentially states that belief in God is logical and a lack of belief is illogical. The idea is, if you believe you stand to gain infinite benefit if you're right and you just live a moral life with no downsides if you're wrong, but if you don't believe you risk infinite loss if you're wrong and you gain a life of vice if you're right.

His goals were more along the lines of persuading non-believers to live a moral life than trying to logically prove that everyone should believe in God. There have also been many counter arguments made, but despite all that people still either invoke Pascal's wager or unknowingly use its logic in attempt to prove that the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible should be believed in and followed. I'm not really trying to bring up a new argument to disprove Pascal's wager, and I'm not trying to convince anyone who thinks it's a good argument to the contrary.

Really, I just had a shower thought and I want to know if my logic is flawed or if Pascal's wager indeed not only isn't a good argument, but if applied at face value actually proves that the Judeo-Christian god is the logically worst god to believe in, (or rather, that he's tied for worst.) When I say "take it at face value" I mean to apply his logic as he does while ignoring anything that makes it a non-starter.

On to my actual argument. Pascal's wager posits a false dichotomy; God exists, or God doesn't. In reality humans have worshipped countless gods throughout history and the wager, if reflective of reality, wouldn't be a 50/50 chance of picking the truth, but more like a 1-in-a-million chance of picking the right god. There are thousands, if not millions of deities that have been worshipped throughout history, and most of those are polytheistic. Hinduism alone has, in some texts, 330 million gods. When a polytheistic religion can have dozens or hundreds of named gods and a monotheistic religion can only have one, the number of monotheistic gods is inevitably going to be insignificantly small.

For simplicity's sake, let's say we have 9,000 polytheistic gods, 999 monotheistic gods, and atheos. Taking Pascal's wager at face value but removing the false dichotomy, we want to use logic to determine what belief will give us the highest chance of reward with the lowest chance of punishment.  Choosing atheism gives us a 1/10,000 chance of being right, but choosing any of the monotheistic gods also gives us only a 1/10,000 chance of being right, but choosing any of the polytheistic gods allows us to chose more than one god and have a greater than 1/10,000 chance of being right, therefore, if you want to use Pascal's logic not only should you not necessarily chose Christianity, but it's considerably worse than choosing any polytheistic religion.

You can essentially ignore hell, heaven, polytheistic religions that still hate you if you worship the wrong gods, religions that have no concept of punishment or reward in the afterlife, and all other minor factors because as long as choosing the Judeo-Christian god means spurning at least one possible deity that does offer eternal paradise and/or eternal punishment, choosing the Judeo-Christian god is as good as choosing no god, and if you chose a god that allows you to worship even one other god that offers infinite punishment and/or reward, then you're twice as likely to have picked the right god than if you'd gone with monotheism.

Edit: To clarify, I am not arguing the validity or efficacy of Pascal's wager, I am not trying for or against Pascal's wager, religion, polytheism, or anything else. My argument is essentially, "If we apply Pascal's wager to all gods that humans have worshipped instead of just the Judeo-Christian God, my view is that by the risk/reward weighing pragmatic logic of the wager and ignoring any outside parameters that the wager doesn't address, polytheism is the correct choice." CMV by proving that monotheism and/or atheism have an equal or greater value than polytheism based on the logic of the wager.

Also, I've awarded a few deltas to people pointing out that some deities don't require you to actively acknowledge them to reap their rewards. I don't think these make monotheism a better choice, because polytheism still gives you more options, but I admit that's a big detail to overlook. I'm not going to give deltas for that point anymore.
gpt
Assuming that deities are mutually exclusive and only one or zero exist, atheism is more like a 9,999/10,000 bet, given that only one alternative is ‘wrong.’

But also, the logical choice, if you buy into Pascal’s logic, is to pick the deity with the worst possible punishment for non belief.  It’s a hedging strategy at core, so you want to hedge against the worst outcome.  I’m not enough of an expert on religion to know if Christianity fulfills that requirement.