On your Pascal’s Wager example, I don’t think your “least convenient possible world” is really equivalent to the world I live in on every meaningful feature other than convenience. Selecting Catholicism out of all similarly complex stories would take a whole lot of evidence. So if Omega tells me the Catholic interpretation of Yahweh is the only plausible god and I completely trust Omega, I’ve been given a lot of evidence in favor of the Catholic interpretation of Yahweh.
Pascal’s Wager is meant to be an argument for theism in the complete absence of evidence, not an argument for theism when you have almost all the evidence to prove that a particular god exists. We have perfectly good mainstream decision theory for what you do when you have evidence; nobody needs Pascal for that.
On your Pascal’s Wager example, I don’t think your “least convenient possible world” is really equivalent to the world I live in on every meaningful feature other than convenience. Selecting Catholicism out of all similarly complex stories would take a whole lot of evidence. So if Omega tells me the Catholic interpretation of Yahweh is the only plausible god and I completely trust Omega, I’ve been given a lot of evidence in favor of the Catholic interpretation of Yahweh.
Pascal’s Wager is meant to be an argument for theism in the complete absence of evidence, not an argument for theism when you have almost all the evidence to prove that a particular god exists. We have perfectly good mainstream decision theory for what you do when you have evidence; nobody needs Pascal for that.