Good question. Perhaps you found the wrong one?
replyI mean there’s such a wide selection you can even believe in simulations these days.
Or if that’s still too much there’s always the Pascal’s wager God. Still better than nothing.
I find Pascal's wager is of the same nature as Aquinas' Five Ways to prove God, or accelerationists about the inevitability of a Singularity: believing that your own rational argument can be the basis to prove a fact about reality merely because it feels internally consistent.
replyNeedless to say, I don’t find them at all convincing. This 'nothing' is much better than catching unconvincing unneeded supernatural entities.
The Wager doesn't attempt to prove God, it merely states that you might as well worship, because the cost is small and the potential payoff is huge.
replyIt falls apart because, based on what's actually known, there's no reason to think worshipping might be the thing that condemns you to hell, and not doing so gets you into heaven, rather than the other way around.
Why bother, though? What does trying to believe in this ill-defined entity do for me?
reply