Battleground God

skolem said:
I don't think the loch-ness monster can be used for an equivalent comparison.

I understand the steps of logic you are making, and the reasoning behind, I just think the question is badly formed.

The problem with loch-ness, is that the lack of evidence of it's existence IS evidence for it not existing. This is because there have been many searches and studies to find it, and although we have no cold hard proof that the loch-ness monster isn't there, the lack of evidence brings it into doubt.

A fairer question should be, does the lack of evidence of UFOs give reason to believe they do not exist. This is an area in which there is not much evidence either way, and answers between that and, 'does God exist', are a lot more comparable.
Click to expand...

See my post here.

I think you are making the same mistake as others; namely, assuming that the question is saying that any evidence for the existence of God must be tangible. The question is not saying this at all.

The question tacitly accepts that existence of God does not hinge solely upon tangible evidence. Evidence can be acceptable even if it is not tangible or even wholly objective - as I have demonstrated by reference to the Battle of Kadesh.

The question is simply testing the consistency of your methodology. If your methodology is logically and rationally consistent, you will pass the question. If it isn't, you won't.
 
Evangelion said:
And to the other religious people on this thread: why are you struggling with the Loch Ness Monster question? What seems to be the problem here?
Click to expand...
I think I made my reading of the questions and the reasoning for my position clear in my last reply, I would like to know why you think I am wrong when I say that they are trying to compare an evidence of absence situation with an absence of evidence one.
 
bam0 said:
I think I made my reading of the questions and the reasoning for my position clear in my last reply, I would like to know why you think I am wrong when I say that they are trying to compare an evidence of absence situation with an absence of evidence one.
Click to expand...

I've addressed this several times now. I can only ask you to go back and read what I've written, because I don't think I can explain it any more clearly or simply than I already have.

Here it is, in a nutshell: they are not trying to compare an evidence of absence situation with an absence of evidence one. They are asking you if you consistently apply the same standards of evidence to all situations. The purpose is to determine the logical and rational consistency of your methodology. If you apply two different standards, you commit the fallacy of special pleading and thereby demonstrate a logical/rational inconsistency.

That is all they're doing.

You could try reading the FAQ connected to the quiz (here). It might help.

Some people in this thread might be pleasantly surprised to learn that atheists aren't terribly comfortable with the evolution question either:

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 point is, of course, that irrevocable certainty is not required before it is reasonable to accept scientific propositions as being true (i.e., as being facts). Here's Stephen Jay Gould on this matter:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
​
 
Last edited:
Evangelion said:
I've addressed this several times now. I can only ask you to go back and read what I've written, because I don't think I can explain it any more clearly or simply than I already have.

Here it is, in a nutshell: they are not trying to compare an evidence of absence situation with an absence of evidence one. They are asking you if you consistently apply the same standards of evidence to all situations. The purpose is to determine the logical and rational consistency of your methodology. If you apply two different standards, you commit the fallacy of special pleading and thereby demonstrate a logical/rational inconsistency.

That is all they're doing.

You could try reading the FAQ connected to the quiz (here). It might help.
Click to expand...
Comprehension fail on my part, I get it now.
 
Thats a truly terrible weighted quiz, some of the logic in it is dreadful and horrendously flawed. Indeed some of the questions themselves are worded in a way that simply isnt detailed enough to be able to give a 1 or 0 answer.
 
bam0 said:
Comprehension fail on my part, I get it now.
Click to expand...

Cheers fella.

:)

Tombstone said:
Thats a truly terrible weighted quiz, some of the logic in it is dreadful and horrendously flawed. Indeed some of the questions themselves are worded in a way that simply isnt detailed enough to be able to give a 1 or 0 answer.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with it. Read the FAQ if you're struggling.
 
Evangelion said:
Here it is, in a nutshell: they are not trying to compare an evidence of absence situation with an absence of evidence one. They are asking you if you consistently apply the same standards of evidence to all situations. The purpose is to determine the logical and rational consistency of your methodology. If you apply two different standards, you commit the fallacy of special pleading and thereby demonstrate a logical/rational inconsistency.
Click to expand...

Nope still don't get it.

One we know what the results of an investigation should be. There for with Loch ness we can assume he does not exist. The other question we can make no such claims.

At the very least it is badly written question.

If you answer "True" to question 10, then you're committed to the view that evidence for the non-existence of Nessie is not required in order to come to the conclusion that the monster does not exist; that is, evidence of absence is not required - rather, in certain circumstances, absence of evidence is enough to conclude that Nessie does not exist. In other words, the fact that there are no compelling arguments or evidence to show that Nessie does not exist (and now we have equivalence with question 14) is not, in and of itself, sufficient to rule out, in principle, a justified belief in Nessie's non-existence.
Click to expand...

And here in lies the problem. it's the other way round.
Yes because it is based on stuff we know and can test for. the same does not apply to question 14. therefore it is still a rubbish question.

It then goes on to try and disprove my stance. But fails and again gets it wrong as that is outside the question. so either the two questions are not comparable or they have the question badly worded.
 
Last edited:
For example...

Why do I have to take a bullet for answering true to this question...

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

On the basis that...

"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"

Thats clearly imprecise, there is some evidence that evolutionary theory is true. Mayhaps not certain proof, but undeniably there is evidence of it. Conversely there is no evidence of God. To me that seems that the 2 individual questions have been worded in such a way as to present this opportunity rather than clearly and precisely detailing the questions (hence the problem with having the answers to the questions being simple 1 and 0 rather than verbose responses). At best some of the questions are poorly worded and not detailed enough, at worst its simply weighted to garner certain responses/thoughts.

(and whats with all this she for god anyway? Have I missed something or is it generally accepted by those that believe that god is a she?)
 
Battleground Analysis
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!
Click to expand...

meh
 
skolem said:
Snip
Click to expand...
the problem is their logic
Well, imagine yourself confronted by a Nessie non-existence sceptic. They're part of some Nessie worshipping cult (and remember that many people do believe truly bizarre things, so this is not entirely gratuitous)! And they say to you: "Sure, Nessie is a physical entity, but it has the rather extraordinary (indeed unique - and possibily mystical) ability to remain forever beyond detection."

How does one respond? Well, it is extremely difficult - indeed it is probably impossible - to disprove this proposition. But equally, most people would consider it absurd to continue to believe in Nessie, if, for example, the whole of Loch Ness was drained of water, and at the bottom one found no Nessie, but a large Nessie shaped submersible.
Click to expand...

This is not the question they asked and so they failed. This is no the standard definition of what the loch ness monster is.

Evangelion how about the other two questions I "failed" on?

for what you call a "logical" quiz why do they refer to a God as she?
either you are of the stance that it is any diety in which case it could be anything.
Or you are referring to the deity in the bible and other such texts which are nearly allways male.
They should be referring to it as it.
 
Last edited:
Some of the questions didn't make any sense. It is telling you basically to make choices on yes and no, *but* sometimes it doesn't take some things in to account.

For example, it tells me that if god exists he wouldn't allow evil (or something like that) when religious people say god gives free will - in other words free will to be good or evil. Not saying I am religious, but they are asking the question as a "suppose god was real"... and then after you get negative points O.o
 
Let me guess, anything but outright atheism comes out as illogical.

I'll do this when I've got my computer in front of me instead of my phone.

Would also like to see dolph's thoughts on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom