How authentic are forums like these actually? With the rise of AI chatbots, internet interaction feels more fake than ever before. Why should I post here my opinions and thoughts, share articles etc. when probably most of you are just chatbots?

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again, it’s not belief in something else. It’s not believing in God. Belief in “not-God” or “anti-God” is logically a different concept entirely. It’s simply belief versus not believing. The major flaw is that it only works if there’s only one God and it’s the God that aligns with whatever belief system you’re claiming said God wants you to follow. If you use the premise of “if there is a god, it’s the Christian god”, and the premise “it costs very little to live a life according to God”, then the two loses are “I acted as if there was a god, lost a little bit of leisure, but no payoff” vs “I acted as if there was no god and now I’m doomed to eternal damnation.” The problem isn’t the logic. It’s the premises that are fallacious.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except that isn’t a converse. It’s relying on the false premise of another god. The inverse of god existing is God not existing. You’re just making up a new proof that isn’t the converse, inverse, or contrapositive. You’re literally just saying what happens if there’s a different god.

          Pascal’s wager suffers from faulty premise, not logical inconsistency. You’re just doing a whole bunch of nonsense and extra work to say the same thing.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, but your “not god” is simply a different deity. So it’s a different proof. We’re back to the faulty premise.

              “God X” and “God Y” are equally valid assertions which violates the premise. I don’t care that you call it “anti-God” since you’re making it equivalent to a god and able to offer eternal rewards. Your entire logical argument is absurd. Pascal’s wager is famously known for suffering from false premise of finite loss and infinite reward. All of the absurdity of the wager comes from the premises which you continually ignore.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Faulty premise isn’t a logical fallacy though. That’s my whole problem here. False premise doesn’t mean the logic is invalid. This is an important concept in formal logic. The argument is fine. The foundation is not. You’re just now agreeing with what I originally said.