Battlefield god

[Suh]

interesting little game

Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm




post your injuries

[Mr. Peanuts]

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

[McVicar]

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.


A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement

[Ignominy]

I found some holes.

It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.

I said false.

The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

I said true, it said

Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!

His beliefs regrading his own decisions are not observations of the external world, therefore what I stated can still apply. That's embarassing for the intellectual sniper.

Also,

It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists.

I said false and they said

You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God? There's an inconsistency here.

WTF you can't double hit me for this one and not triple hit me because of the first one just because the serial killer question (that is already bullshit, mind you) is in the middle. There's an inconsistency there.

I declare this game a logical failure. GG

[Suh]

i think your expecting to much out of something that requires the deepth of "true" or "false" answers

[eehh]

You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 335973 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.

i have no idea what i just did, but i think i did good..

[Ignominy]

i think your expecting to much out of something that requires the deepth of "true" or "false" answers

It tried to act all tight, telling me I was wrong. I had to face-sit it.

[Dameon Angell]

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

I think this is a pretty cool quiz for my world relgion, philosophy, class.

[Subjugation]

You've just bitten a bullet!

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

I bit a bullet and took 1 direct hit. But I don't really agree because I consider it impossible to prove the existence of God, but I think the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. I mean, let's face it...Loch Ness monster lives in an environment that can be scientifically mapped and explored. The absence of discovering the Loch Ness Monster is reasonable proof that it doesn't exist. However, a God would not be constrainted by physical reality, so it's reasonable to believe it's still possible for God to exist, even without empirical proof.

But w/e. I still had fun. Thx, Suh.

[NaiLed]

I found some holes.

It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.

I said false.

The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

I said true, it said

Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!

His beliefs regrading his own decisions are not observations of the external world, therefore what I stated can still apply. That's embarassing for the intellectual sniper.

Also,

It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists.

I said false and they said

You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God? There's an inconsistency here.

WTF you can't double hit me for this one and not triple hit me because of the first one just because the serial killer question (that is already bullshit, mind you) is in the middle. There's an inconsistency there.

I declare this game a logical failure. GG

yes, this is basically what happened to me. the same two questions, actually.

[tugs]

"You took 3 direct hits and you have bitten 1 bullet. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 336404 people have so far undertaken this activity."

the 3 hits i took i view as taking advantage of the overloading of the words "faith" and "belief"

both faith and belief can be used in 2 ways as i see it: one including rationality, and one in defiance of rationality.

the other concept they overloaded was lack of evidence.
in the lochness monsta part lack of evidence in my view is strong anti-evidence since an exhaustive search can be done.
with God, lack of evidence in my view goes both ways, that is there's lack of evidence he exists, and lack of evidence he doesnt exist.

in general i thought this quiz was extremely biased, without apologies for the bias.

[Salubrious]

Direct Hit 1

You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

Based on their rationale, it would also be a contradiction to not believe in God because that would also be basing your disbelief on a "firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or (specifically) lack of it". This question has no actual real answer based on what I've said, so I lose either way.

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

No one person can define rationality. I disagree with their reasoning because by saying 1+1=72, I'm actually saying that EVERYTHING including religion and basic principles is debatable.