This is a dumb argument.
The "multiple-choice" framework pre-supposes his preferred conclusion, that the truth-values of all religions are equally likely.
From a religious worldview, the argument fails.
The analogy is more like this:
"2+2 = ?
A. 4
B. Bip
C. Cip
D. Dip
... "
No matter how many "possible answers" are included, the likeliness of "A" being correct is not actually affected. It will appear that the probability is diminished only if you consider the answers randomly, without any regard for their content, in which case, you have pre-supposed their equivalency.
That is true. I never said that it did.
To clarify, since there seems to be a disconnect here:
My initial comment was predicated on the belief that you were a human who had internalized an AI-esque writing style, likely from over-exposure. When actual humans begin to sound like ChatGPT, that's what I find unsettling.
My second reply, was to clarify whether or not you were human, since your question seemed to imply that you were an AI. Since my critique was of your commentary was that it sounded eerily similar to an AI, when you replied with "how should an AI sound?" It seems to imply that you are an AI.
Anyway, I regret commenting in the first place. Glad we could hash this out.
This seems totally fake at first glance.
Why redact the recipient in the top email while exposing the sender, and vice versa in the bottom email? Each email provides the info that the other redacts, making the redactions serve no purpose.
Even if it were real, it's mundane-- two assistants talking.
@WallStreetApes To be fair, if they really are coming from Worcester, as they claim, that's pretty close. It's not crazy to go 45 mins or an hour to the nearest major city, and the capital of your state.