Battleground God (logic test)

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-03-04 02:56pm

I saw this on my weekly peek into twcenter, and I haven't seen it posted here yet.

Logic Test

I got:

0 direct hits. 0 bullets bitten from:

God exists
False

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2006-03-04 03:21pm

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 without being hit and biting very few bullets 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 bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

You suffered zero direct hits and bit 2 bullets.

God exists: Can't know. Very interesting test, although the explanations about biting bullets/contradictions are slightly confusing (It may be simply due to the paragraph layout or it's just me)

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-03-04 03:32pm

Took one hit; I contradicted myself on it being justifiable to beleive in God.

Of course, my justification is 'It's totally irrational, and as a human, I am irrational.' That sounds consistant to me.

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-03-04 03:35pm

What was the exact wording on these contradictions?
I did a few retakes to see what other answers would give me, and sometimes I disagreed until I looked at exactly what had been written, then I tended to agree with what they said.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2006-03-04 03:43pm

Medal of distinction. One bullet bitten, and one hit.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-03-04 03:45pm

Took zero hits, bit three bullets. The way some of these questions are phrased is a little screwy and awkward to wrap your head around, and they tend to come up with contradictions for stuff you wouldn't really expect.

Shortie · Post by **Shortie** » 2006-03-04 03:47pm

Interesting. It did point out a flaw in my thinking the first time (I do actually think that justifying beliefs on internal convictions is okay, because other stuff has to follow on from that), but I'm not sure about the biting bullets thing, they're very arguable.

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-03-04 03:51pm

Shortie wrote:Interesting. It did point out a flaw in my thinking the first time (I do actually think that justifying beliefs on internal convictions is okay, because other stuff has to follow on from that), but I'm not sure about the biting bullets thing, they're very arguable.

I'd say that having beliefs based on internal conviction is fine, but justifying them isn't.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-03-04 04:06pm

I bit only one bullet, and that was on the Proof of evolution/proof of god thing. Of course, it might be a bit more of an issue were there any directly attributable evidence for god.

Stile · Post by **Stile** » 2006-03-04 04:14pm

"You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet."

Macunaima · Post by **Macunaima** » 2006-03-04 04:25pm

Better than I first imagine... zero hits, bit 1 bullet, also with a "true" on 6 and 13. Interesting test.

Post by **Simplicius** » 2006-03-04 04:35pm

I bit the "proof of evolution/proof of God" bullet as well.

Starting with the premise that God doesn't exist made supplying consistent answers pretty easy, it seemed.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-03-04 04:36pm

I only bit one bullet, and it was the same as the above. The wording of the question was tricky, but I have read literature on evolution by Gould, Dawkins, and Richard Morris, and they seem to hold that evolution, as an idea, IS certain and irrevocable, although some processes within it might not be. The idea is untouchable, they write in their books (at least the one I am on now by Morris).

They say that the theory is not, however. That confused me.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2006-03-04 04:58pm

I also bit the evolution/God proof crap. Seemed like a nit-picky cheap shot to me.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-03-04 05:17pm

Medal of distinction. One bullet bit.

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-03-04 05:17pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:I only bit one bullet, and it was the same as the above. The wording of the question was tricky, but I have read literature on evolution by Gould, Dawkins, and Richard Morris, and they seem to hold that evolution, as an idea, IS certain and irrevocable, although some processes within it might not be. The idea is untouchable, they write in their books (at least the one I am on now by Morris).

They say that the theory is not, however. That confused me.

Actually, all it says is:

Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

and

It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

So it does not say that evolutionary theory is false in any matters of detail, just that it might be, and if it was, would still be largely correct.

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:I also bit the evolution/God proof crap. Seemed like a nit-picky cheap shot to me.

The way I saw it is that if there was some evidence of god, then it would be rational to believe in it, to an extent. Certainly if there was evidence equal to that of evolution, then it would certainly be believable.

Of course I don't believe that any such evidence actually exists, mind.

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-03-04 05:26pm

Out of interest: what did people answer to, the omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, totally free questions? I answered that it would be none of these things as, despite claims to the contrary, the big gods aren't any of these things, and I have no other ideas about what a god would be like.

Also, what did anyone interpret 'totally free' to mean? I figured it meant omnipotent, until that was listed separately.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-03-04 05:33pm

Old Peculier, my point was with this statement they made in regard to the evolution question:

3. Evolutionary theory has been proved certainly and irrevocably.

This one catches the atheists, and boy, they don't like it. The problem emerges (it's a bullet) if one accepts that evolutionary theory is true, but want certain and irrevocable proof for God before accepting God's existence.

Well, sorry guys, you don't get certain and irrevocable proof in science - and if you think that you do, then it is you that doesn't understand how science works, not us!

The above authors I mentioned actually DO say there is no contest. It is certain and irrevocable that evolution exists, although some processes ARE in dispute. The website is trying to say it's not, and I find it hard to believe the above scientists would say something blatantly false then. I have heard people say it is a "fact." If it is a fact, how can it not be certain?

I didn't have a question about anything they said about needing irrevocable proof or anything.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-03-04 05:34pm

Edit: apparently, Gould and Morris and Dawkins don't know anything about science according to the test.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2006-03-04 05:36pm

Medal of Honour

Wow, I'm actually sane. Who'd've thunk it?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-03-04 06:02pm

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 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!

My bit bullet was answering true to 6 and 13.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-03-04 06:24pm

I received the TPM medal of distinction. No hits, but I bit one bullet:

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!

The analysis:

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.

Old Peculier · Post by **Old Peculier** » 2006-03-04 06:26pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Old Peculier, my point was with this statement they made in regard to the evolution question:

3. Evolutionary theory has been proved certainly and irrevocably.

This one catches the atheists, and boy, they don't like it. The problem emerges (it's a bullet) if one accepts that evolutionary theory is true, but want certain and irrevocable proof for God before accepting God's existence.

Well, sorry guys, you don't get certain and irrevocable proof in science - and if you think that you do, then it is you that doesn't understand how science works, not us!

The above authors I mentioned actually DO say there is no contest. It is certain and irrevocable that evolution exists, although some processes ARE in dispute. The website is trying to say it's not, and I find it hard to believe the above scientists would say something blatantly false then. I have heard people say it is a "fact." If it is a fact, how can it not be certain?

I didn't have a question about anything they said about needing irrevocable proof or anything.

I see, I had not read the FAQ.

It says "This one catches the atheists, and boy, they don't like it." However, I do not, in fact have a problem with it. I do not need 'certain and irrevocable proof' to believe in the theory of evolution beyond all reasonable doubt. I just need plenty of evidence, which fortunately it has. It is the fact of evolution which, as far as I am aware, has been proven against all things other than sophistry (which is of course, worthless).

I hold belief in god to the same standard. If there was 'certain and irrevocable proof', I would have to believe. If there was proof beyond all reasonable doubt, I'd surely believe. If there was even some, but not complete, evidence, I'd consider it as an idea; but I have seen none, so I do not.

Post by **Simplicius** » 2006-03-04 06:29pm

Old Peculier: I answered negatively to all of them, for two reasons. Firstly, my opening premise was that God doesn't exist, and so cannot posess any quality at all, and secondly, they seem like such absurd qualities on the whole that I would be hard-pressed to accept them even if I had started from a different premise - much like your own assessment.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2006-03-04 06:56pm

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:I also bit the evolution/God proof crap. Seemed like a nit-picky cheap shot to me.

Did anyone here not get hit by it ?

It was the only one to get me