Asklemmy

43340 readers

2067 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

281

How many of you are actually chatbots? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

310 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.