In your example T2 and T1 are equally likely. However, T2 has far greater utility and is the smart choice. This is because there are an infinite number of equally likely theories in which any course of action may have an effect, and these theories will balance out to make every course of action identical for purposes of "afterlife" and similar considerations. It is just as likely that God will punish us for being Christian as that he will reward us, for example.

However, this case is irrelevant. Christianity does make different predictions about the world, very different predictions. Those predictions don't bear out. Keep in mind that "implied conditions" are as important here as "actual conditions." In other words, if there had been a world-wide flood and all species of animal had spread from a single point subsequently, there should be evidence of that in today's world. In this case, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

If you manage to explain all this away, you have to keep in mind that by definition if T1 and T2 make the same prediction there is absolutely no utility in believing T1. T2 has a greater utility, and therefore anyone arguing for T1 is essentially talking about the flying spaghetti monster.

(Theoretically if you have no evidence at all, you make no assumptions at all. You may choose to believe in one thing or another for functional reasons, however - for example if believing in God makes you feel happier)