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?

  • hoodatninja@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    Ok I’m going to sort of lay this out because I know what you’re referring to but it’s a distinct counter argument that’s different from the one I’m bringing up.

    We have no proof of god therefore we have 4 options:

    1. If god is not real and you don’t believe in him, you don’t get eternal happiness.
    2. If god is not real and you do believe in him, you don’t get eternal happiness.
    3. If god is real and you don’t believe in him, you don’t get eternal happiness.
    4. If god is real and you do believe in him, you get eternal happiness.

    Ergo, since only one outcome leads to eternal happiness - which is infinitely better than any other option - you should go with option 4.

    However, conversely one can say (because we have no proof/evidence and are going with theoreticals and a mathematical approach):

    1. If there is no anti-God, and you bet God Exists, you get nothing.
    2. If there is an anti God and you bet God does exist, you get nothing
    3. If there is no anti-God, and you bet No God, you get nothing
    4. If there is an anti-God and you bet No God, then you get eternal bliss

    Ergo, since only one outcome leads to eternal happiness - which is infinitely better than any other option - you should go with option 4.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      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
          1·
          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
              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.