Mike responds with three problems: (1) Drew misrepresents Pascal's wager as "believe whatever promises the most" — Pascal actually included evidential evaluation; (2) modern proponents like Michael Rota and Liz Jackson pair evidence with the wager; (3) Pascal's wager is decision theory, not blind gambling.

Pascal had multiple versions of his wager (died before publishing, notes assembled posthumously). Modern versions (Rota's "Taking Pascal's Wager", Liz Jackson's paper) always include evidential evaluation of Christianity's likelihood before applying the wager. The wager helps those on the fence make a decision, not replace evidence. William Lane Craig also mentioned in context of formal debates.