I'm sorry, but where did the '2 is false' actually come from? I've read through, and I agree with everything up until that, rather overbearing statement. You have proven that 2 is irrelevant multiple times, but none of those statements say 'if x is true/false, then 2 is false' so you haven't done anything to prove 2 untrue.
Secondly, this is not a refutation of Laplace's Wager. He is still correct in that if you choose to believe in God and there is a God, you will go to Heaven, and since you have proven the existence of God is irrelevant, that means that your belief in the non-existence of God is also irrelevant, and if it's irrelevant, that means that it's more logical to hold belief in the existence of God, since that gives you a statistically higher chance of entering Heaven, if it does exist.
(Besides, psychological studies have shown that being religious and believing in an afterlife makes people happier and likely to live longer, so scientifically speaking, a belief in God is more rational than a belief in no God, even if you would be coming at it from an extremely cynical POV!)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-06 05:01 pm (UTC)Secondly, this is not a refutation of Laplace's Wager. He is still correct in that if you choose to believe in God and there is a God, you will go to Heaven, and since you have proven the existence of God is irrelevant, that means that your belief in the non-existence of God is also irrelevant, and if it's irrelevant, that means that it's more logical to hold belief in the existence of God, since that gives you a statistically higher chance of entering Heaven, if it does exist.
(Besides, psychological studies have shown that being religious and believing in an afterlife makes people happier and likely to live longer, so scientifically speaking, a belief in God is more rational than a belief in no God, even if you would be coming at it from an extremely cynical POV!)