Battleground God (logic test)

[Vanas]

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.

Woo.

[Medic]

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

It was -- it's bullshit cause there's real-world tangible evidence for evolution but none for God.

So how does it get away with framing the question in a way that God as an idea has just as much merit?

[Ace Pace]

I'm done, I was caught in a catch 22 at

If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

Either answer kills me.

I've bitten one bullet, took zero hits, I suppose I am rational when I have time to think about it.

[Bounty]

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.

[Mr. T]

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

It was -- it's bullshit cause there's real-world tangible evidence for evolution but none for God.

So how does it get away with framing the question in a way that God as an idea has just as much merit?

Agreed this questin tripped me up too. I took one hit, that was the only hit I took.

The "Do it yourself Deity" link on the website was kindof nifty.

[Old Peculier]

No hits, one bullet. Which is that I do require a higher standard of proof for the existance of God than for the existence of evolution.

And I am entirely correct to do so, because the concept of a being which is removed from extant physical laws is more controversial than the concept of a system which obeys those laws.

The greater the controversy of a claim, the more proof is required before the claim can be accepted.

I get that argument, and I think you are right; something which goes against what we already know about the universe should be held to a higher standard of proof (especialy if there is a simpler alternative theory). Nevertheless, your answer implies that you would need irrevocable proof. Is that true, or would you just require more evidence than evolution requires?

Furthermore, who says the laws of physics must be broken? I suppose it depends on your definition of god. Since I don't believe in one, mine is quite vague, and does not require omnipotence, omniscience etc.

[Zadius]

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

It was -- it's bullshit cause there's real-world tangible evidence for evolution but none for God.

So how does it get away with framing the question in a way that God as an idea has just as much merit?

In a hypothetical world where there is lots of evidence for god, it would be justifiable to believe in god. The fact that, in the real word, no such evidence exists is not relevant to the question.

[Bounty]

No hits, one bullet. Which is that I do require a higher standard of proof for the existance of God than for the existence of evolution.

And I am entirely correct to do so, because the concept of a being which is removed from extant physical laws is more controversial than the concept of a system which obeys those laws.

The greater the controversy of a claim, the more proof is required before the claim can be accepted.

I get that argument, and I think you are right; something which goes against what we already know about the universe should be held to a higher standard of proof (especialy if there is a simpler alternative theory). Nevertheless, your answer implies that you would need irrevocable proof. Is that true, or would you just require more evidence than evolution requires?

Furthermore, who says the laws of physics must be broken? I suppose it depends on your definition of god. Since I don't believe in one, mine is quite vague, and does not require omnipotence, omniscience etc.

Isn't this simply about the difference between complete and absolute certainty ? I am completely sure that evolution is correct - ie, I know from the evidence presented that it is correct - but I am not absolutely sure; if new evidence comes forward I am willing to review it no matter how small the chance that it might change my view.

Someone who believes in a god however, may be absolutely sure, to the point where they don't even bother to discuss it anymore.

So there is a difference between me "believing" in evolution and someone "believing" in god apart from the evidence.

[Tasoth]

that second question that nails you for evolution is tripe. 'Evolution is a theory' does not equate to 'God's existence cannot be proven and thus is a theory' because we have physical, tangible evidence we can experiment with for evolution and nothing for god. Talk about some bullshit.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm done, I was caught in a catch 22 at

If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

Either answer kills me.

I've bitten one bullet, took zero hits, I suppose I am rational when I have time to think about it.

The problem is that the quote is bullshit. If you square a circle, it is no longer a circle. Further, the 1 + 1 = 72 thing is conceptionally impossible. It's not just normal everyday impossible, if one and one can equal seventy-two, then the concepts involved are inherently worthless.

[Captain tycho]

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

Yeah, this one was the only one to hit me too. It is rather nitpicky.

[Winston Blake]

TPM Medal of Distinction, bit two bullets.

First was 6/7:

You're under fire! You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it.

WTF? No i didn't, it asked "Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true", which i interpreted as 'evolution has holes in it, it's not fully reliable'.

Then 16:

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.

Um, no i'm not, and what the hell is 'ultimate reality'? Isn't the Judeo-Christian capital-g God described as omnipotent and ineffable? I mean, if God existed and was omnipotent then 'she' could make it so that dog shit tasted like ice cream if she were so inclined.

[Imperial Overlord]

Um, no i'm not, and what the hell is 'ultimate reality'? Isn't the Judeo-Christian capital-g God described as omnipotent and ineffable? I mean, if God existed and was omnipotent then 'she' could make it so that dog shit tasted like ice cream if she were so inclined.

The usual definition of ominpotence in metaphysics is the ability to do anything that isn't logically impossible. Therefore God can make planets or blow up stars, but He cannot square circles or create boulders so big even He cannot lift them. It is impossible to rationally talk about even an omnipotent God if your definition of God rejects rationality (i.e. God doing logically impossible things).

Did this a while back, scored perfect which I must say isn't that hard if you are an atheist.

[Sriad]

TPM Medal of Distinction, bit two bullets.

First was 6/7:

You're under fire! You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it.

WTF? No i didn't, it asked "Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true", which i interpreted as 'evolution has holes in it, it's not fully reliable'.

What "false in some matters of detail" meant there was just this: evolutionary data may not be totally accurate in certain trivial matters, but evolutionary theory itself is quite sound. Remember, in any statement that contains the word "but" it's what comes after the but that really matters.

Then 16:

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.

Um, no i'm not, and what the hell is 'ultimate reality'? Isn't the Judeo-Christian capital-g God described as omnipotent and ineffable? I mean, if God existed and was omnipotent then 'she' could make it so that dog shit tasted like ice cream if she were so inclined.

Making shit taste like ice cream only requires changing the nature of taste buds or the chemical make up of shit. (or ice cream, if the God in question is particularly sadistic.) However, allowing a God the power to indulge in things that are totally irrational, like making the statement 2=72 true, means that anything we say about that God could be true or false or corn, depending on the God's whims.

PS: bit one, took one. Both on contradictions where, if I were asked both questions at once, I probably would have changed my answers.

[Winston Blake]

The usual definition of ominpotence in metaphysics is the ability to do anything that isn't logically impossible.

However, allowing a God the power to indulge in things that are totally irrational, like making the statement 2=72 true, means that anything we say about that God could be true or false or corn, depending on the God's whims.

I guess i just took 'omnipotent/ineffable/etc' to mean 'all bets are off', bring on the Unlimited Power (tm).

You know, i wouldn't be surprised if Kuroneko or Surlethe described how 2 can equal 72 under certain obscure conditions inconceivable to me, or that in a peculiar geometry 'squares' and 'circles' are the same thing. Just the other day it was mentioned that the 'OR' operator can be square rooted in an area of quantum physics, and this was adequately explained by somebody.

[mr friendly guy]

You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 310200 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.

It wasn't too bad if you chose to go in as an atheist.

There were a few questions designed to trip you up.
For example question 12 asked If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. I answered false.

Earlier I had answered false to Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. Unfortunately since this didn't ask what limits I imposed on God it could have stuffed me up on question 12. The limits on Gods powers I thought was that he could do anything except something which is logically impossible, say cannot make 1 + 1 =72.

Since I defined morality as a concept independent from God, it would follow that God cannot alter morality. However question 12 could also be answered True according to my reasoning, since God can make something morally acceptable if he has the power to take control of your minds, ala Charles Xavier. The thing is, "becomes morally acceptable" could be interpreted as the concept itself changes to what is moral or not, or God just brainwashes people into accepting what is morally acceptable, n which case the concept of morality is unchanged. Not very well asked that question and I had to guess whether the phrase was a trick question.

The evolution question was also one you could potentially trip up on. Keep in mind it was asking about evolution theory as opposed to observed evolution. Evolution as defined as changes in the population of a species is an observed fact, evolution theory which tries to explain this observed phenomena could still be false in some areas as our knowledges improves. For example the predominant Neo-Darwinism view is being challenged in some areas by Eldredge-Goulds punctuated equilibrium theory. Other areas are in regard to evolution theory which are in dispute are should the individual or genes act as the solitary unit of evolution, importance of various factors affecting evolution.

Now I am going to try it as a fundie, trying to guess what the average fundie would say. I suspect its possible to go in as a fundie with logical consistency, especially if I think this through.

[mr friendly guy]

Playing a fundie

You have reached the end!

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

You took 1 direct hit and you bit 3 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 310205 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "False" to questions 6 and 7.

These answers generated the following response:

You're under fire! You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say. (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

You chose to bite the bullet.

****************

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered "True" to questions 1, 4 and 11, and also "True" to one or more of questions 3, 5 or 8.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose. There is no logical contradiction in your position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?

****************

Bitten Bullet 3

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.

[mr friendly guy]

I made it to the end just having to bite one bullet while believing in God. As long as you use a few assumptions

a) God can do anything even those physically impossible, but not logically impossible

b) morality is independent of God

c) God is moral

So when they ask you about whether God wants to reduce suffering you will have to answer true. When they ask you about people dying from horrible diseases for some higher power you will have to answer true. As it is I bite the bullet, however my beliefs are still logically consistent.

d) There is evidence for God (not just based on firm conviction) and we believe God exists based on such evidence.

So you can answer true to the evolution question and true to the loch ness monster does not exist question.

[Magnetic]

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour!
You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 310244 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Not sure what that really means for me, but it was interesting, none the less.

[The Guid]

I object to the comparison between God and the Loch Ness monster. If the Loch Ness monster were there, we would have seen it by now. The fact is that the Loch Ness monster is supposed to have a physical presence whereas I believe in a God without a physical presence. Surely not believing in the Loch Ness monster is therefore consistent with my lack of belief in God?

[Agemegos]

I bit one bullet and took one hit, they said. But they were wrong on both counts.

In the first place, they failed to take into account that Loch Ness is of finite size, and therefore susceptible to an exhaustive search, whereas the specification space for what you might call God is unbounded. It is therefore possible to conclude that Nessie doesn't exist because you have not found her--if, for example, you have searched Loch Ness.

These guys need to review the distinction between 'necessary' and 'sufficient'. Absence of sufficient evidence is not conclusive evidence of absence. But absence of necessary evidence is sufficent evidence of absence.

As for requiring a higher standard of proof for God than for evolution, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Evolution follows logically from four axioms: reproduction, inheritance, mutation, differential rates of reproductive success. All those things are observable, therefore evolution is logically necessary. Evidence is nice as a reality check, and I'm really happy that it is so profuse. But it doesn't take much to convince me, because the propostion is intrinsically plausible. On the other hand, human minds (and other animal minds) are demonstrably neurological phenomena: brain injuries and drugs prove that. To suppose that the Universe or its uncaused cause or whatever has a mind despite not having a brain is pretty far-fetched. And to suppose that that mind is afflicted with heuristics for flourishing in the human ancestral environmment, such as love and jealousy, is downright wacky. It is not an intellectual inconsistency to require more evidence for a bizarre claim than for plausible one. It is jjust a useful heuristic.

[The Spartan]

Took a hit. Said that I need "irrevocable proof" for the existance of a god or gods but not so for evolution.

Though I don't really see that as a contradiction; there is mountains of evidence for evolution and not one shred that I've seen for god. And if a being showed up claiming to be a god, my first thought would be to look for the man behind the curtain, so to speak.

[wautd]

You took 1 direct hit and you bit 1 bullet

[lazerus]

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

I got past that one, no sweat. I took on direct hit, I said god was all powerfull, but that got coudln't make 1+1=72.

[b00tleg]

This is the bullet I bit

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.


I was kind of confused when asked previous questions like 3 "Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything." and question 5 "Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything." question 8 "Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know," and question 12 "If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful." Which I answered all true to.

They then ask question 16 "If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72." which I answered true to and got dinged with. This was the only part where I took issue with the test because the previous questions seem to be asking that you build a premise for what woudl qualify as god. Technically question 16 is correct in saying that no, square circles can't exist and 1+1 = 72 b/c that defies all rules of logic, physics and mathematics.

By answering the previous questions true, you are establishing that God is free to do anything, all knowing, can invert morality and make what is deemed sinful now acceptable, it would seem logical that God would be capable of creating square circles or changing mathematics. If God is free to do anything, then he wouldn't be bound by our physical laws. At least thats how I see it. Am I wrong in my thinking?