Rational beliefs about God?, Play this game to find out... Options

What do you believe about God, are you rational and consistent?

Play this game and find out: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Did you get across the battleground in one piece?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

I'm doing well so far, but it came up with this:

You've just bitten a bullet!

You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

Edit:

You have reached the end!

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

You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten 2 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 263484 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.

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!

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 being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Interesting excise, with almost no chance of making it without injury LOL (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tomato.gif)

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you said that 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 this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

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.

You've just had a near miss!

You claim that it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions. But earlier you stated that the serial rapist, Peter Sutcliffe, was not justified in believing, purely on the basis of inner-convictions, that he correctly discerned God's intentions in his raping and murdering of prostitutes. In order to reconcile these claims you need to show what makes the same form of justification acceptable in one circumstance and unacceptable in another. Perhaps you can do this. But until you can show where the difference lies, you are in danger of taking a direct hit!

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

You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten 1 bullet. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 264339 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Congratulations!

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

Analysis of your Direct Hit

Click here if you want to see a complete listing of the questions that you answered.

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that 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 this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

Click here if you want to see a complete listing of the questions that you answered.

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 hits!!!

Yet the world disagrees with my views...!
(3 bitten bullets...)

This post has been edited by UniOne: May 7 2005, 03:36 PM

I bit the bullet and got hit once, but ended up with a Medal of Distinction. Good to know we can justify our beliefs this way...


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/yahoo.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/butcher.gif)

This post has been edited by Alekhine: Jul 14 2005, 06:46 AM

Congratulations!
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 being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif)

Ditto...one hit, one bullet. I disagree though, the questions are set up for only one way to the top!

Who said that "Consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds!"?

I got a medal of Honour no hits or bites.
It is riged though. If You believe in God then id say that you have to say he cannot do anything he wants, nor does he have the power to do so (I tried both for fun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/13.gif)). I believe this. But if you say that he can then the rules will catch you out with a bite on the one about the 'making a circle a square' question (17). The reason they give for bites is that they propose something that is dificult to accept.

But If God can do anything than he can make circles squares according to this premise and therefore it is logical. So the bite is based on the authors opinion rather than actual deductive reasoning.

Thanks for that fun fun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

This post has been edited by Avitus: Aug 1 2005, 06:02 AM

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 got the second highest award. I took one hit and bit no bullets (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

When I first did this, I didn't do too well, so I didn't post my results (IMG:style_emoticons/default/fie.gif)

But well done to GunpowderPerfume and Avitus (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Thank you Radiant Star, I must admit that the answers I picked were chosen because I intentionally tried not to contradict my original opinions but otherwise were falacies when it comes to my own beliefs.

Those questions and "hits" were based on a one-sided opinion of whether your actually contradicting yourself --since you cant express what you meant when you answered each question.

In reality, I should have gotten shot up like it was Compton.

But If God can do anything than he can make circles squares according to this premise and therefore it is logical. So the bite is based on the authors opinion rather than actual deductive reasoning.

This quote is absolutely true and has a lot to do with my last post so Im adding it in!!

You have reached the end!

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

You took 1 direct hit and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 275565 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.


Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
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 being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.


The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.


Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Woot i got tmp second highest reward only bit the bullet once and took only one direct hit lol. Awsome link lot of fun... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ac42.gif)

>>The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable

societal conformity via bullets!!! - how (tienanmen) square!!!

Nice quiz, took one direct hit, but bit no bullets. Apparently I should believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

Kathryn Wins!
Flawless Victory.

apparently that's a 7.89% result.

Seriously though, the test is a bit narrow minded. Mainly because it asks for absolute answers to questions where people may have ambivalence or ambiguity in their view.
There was one question where I could have gone either way, and simply answered in the way I deduced that the test wanted.

I think the test is just as flawless as I am. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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!

Yeah, this is S.S type scrutiny aimed to unearth the unweary Jew... could well answer why I said yes or no but wasn't given a chance to,

You've taken a direct hit!

You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering.

You've just taken a direct hit!

You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.

Because to God there is no right and wrong, yet to us on earth there is and has to be otherwise crass debauchery would obsecure our view of the heavens and prevent our evolution (which is spiritual not physical). Diffrent rule of thumb down here (terra) than there is up there.

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.

No, because his actions fall foul of universal law but beat on me anyway for apparently contradicing myself why don't you .lol. You can't apply logic (Left brained thinking) to such a broad and encompassing subject... main diffrence between western and eastern philosophy left and right brained ideals and ideas. You can't apply logic to the universe, you only get what you get from it, little else.

... since when was God a she anyway .lol.

Because to God there is no right and wrong, yet to us on earth there is and has to be otherwise crass debauchery would obsecure our view of the heavens and prevent our evolution (which is spiritual not physical). Diffrent rule of thumb down here (terra) than there is up there.

That still means God can't be the basis of morality.

No, because his actions fall foul of universal law

He would probably think your actions fall foul of universal law. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

... since when was God a she anyway .lol.

Yeah, what the hell?

This post has been edited by Vilhjalmr: Jul 26 2010, 11:53 AM

"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."

Or I'm good at games of sophistry based on symbolic logic, which is basically what this exercise was all about...

To be honest, I think it denies reality a bit to talk about ideas like "morality" as things divorced from a cultural context.

Was def. more than one question that couldn't be answered by "yes or no" in my book. But again, this is how rhetoric wins, by defining the terms by which which it's "okay" to reason.

This post has been edited by monkman418: Aug 16 2010, 06:49 PM

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 being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!


Lol I knew when I was going to be hit. I claim their logic is at fault not fine (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)