Pascals Wager is about assuming the EV is infinite, not that it simply exists.

That's why I said "like". They're both in that you're choosing the option with the +EV rather than the one that the evidence points to.

The error in Pascal's Wager is assuming there are only two possibilities. Once you realize that there's the possibility of a God who, say, punishes all the faithful, the argument falls down.

That's not the case here. There are actually only two alternatives.

The only reason you'd have +EV is if evidence suggested it to be so. You compute EV using evidence, and if you don't have any evidence, you don't have any EV at all.