Battleground God

[p4radox]

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.

No not quite, it's actually assessing the logical consistency of the user. Religiously, it seems fairly neutral.

I had a problem with this:

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.
-TRUE

You've just bitten a bullet!

You are consistent in applying the principle 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 this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist.

My initial thought was "BS! People can believe what they want, so long as the don't harm others".

Then I realised my mistake, the question asks if he was justified in "undertaking these actions", which he wasn't. I committed the error of not reading the question correctly...

 

[Tombstone]

For example, it tells me that if god exists he wouldn't allow evil

He would if he was an 'evil' god. Like Eris or Set or Loki maybe. Or Takhisis even

 

[Dark_Angel]

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.

What bugs me though, is that they ask you questions as "if god IS real" so for you are meant to make an assumption that god is real, and therefore you answer accordingly. But then, they say you are being illogical - you just told me that I have to assume he is real?

 

[p4radox]

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.

The problem is that you have double standards for what type of evidence you require to believe something is "true". You want irrevocable proof for the existence of God, but are happy with less than this for the theory of evolution.

The quantity of what you call "evidence" is irrelevant in this case.

 

[Tombstone]

The problem is that you have double standards for what type of evidence you require to believe something is "true". You want irrevocable proof for the existence of God, but are happy with less than this for the theory of evolution.

The quantity of what you call "evidence" is irrelevant in this case.

Yes but thats not my fault is it. Thats the way the questions are worded, one asks clearly for irrevocable proof and the other doesnt. I would believe that something is true if I have some evidence for it, but if there is no evidence for it then I obviously wont believe in it.

 

[m0r94n]

As an atheist I find this quiz ridiculous. They seem to nitpick far too much.

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

Can't help but find this strange too. I wonder what intellect level a theist would come out with.

 

[p4radox]

Yes but thats not my fault is it. Thats the way the questions are worded, one asks clearly for irrevocable proof and the other doesnt.

Then you need to sort out your logical inconsistency and answer accordingly.

Do you require the same level of proof for god as for the theory of evolution?
If so, what level of proof is this?

 

[Tombstone]

Then you need to sort out your logical inconsistency and answer accordingly.

Do you require the same level of proof for god as for the theory of evolution?
If so, what level of proof is this?

Not necesarily the same level of proof, but I require at least some proof of it !

However, I cannot answer this way within the context of the quiz, I can only answer 1 or 0, which is why I mentioned the inherent problem with the quiz and the available responses.

 

[jmc007]

Flawed questionaire.

 

[RDM]

Let me guess, anything but outright atheism comes out as illogical.

Nope, I have been through the quiz starting with all three of the starting positions and can come out with zero inconsistencies.

 

[chrisd]

Can't help but find this strange too. I wonder what intellect level a theist would come out with.

Why is it strange? An entirely logical theist would 'score' the same as an entirely logical atheist.

The quiz is more likely to upset an atheist given their tendency to claim their views are rooted in logic and science.

 

[Tombstone]

The quiz is more likely to upset an atheist given their tendency to claim their views are rooted in logic and science.

Thats true, its why I say my atheist view is due to evidence rather than logic or science

(although I suppose technically you could say that evidence in itself is inherently scientific)

 

[m0r94n]

Why is it strange? An entirely logical theist would 'score' the same as an entirely logical atheist.

The quiz is more likely to upset an atheist given their tendency to claim their views are rooted in logic and science.

Do they need to reward you based on your intellect level? Not really. This quiz is just for people to willy wave how strong their faith is based on answers to a couple of questions.

Its not that its upset me, and my beliefs aren't rooted firmly in logic and science. I just question the purpose of the quiz? It doesn't seem to be in the spirit of fun, in fact it seems to provoke arguments about peoples beliefs.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I've got some problems with the quiz.

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice:

I do think that any deity worthy of the name must want to reduce suffering but that doesn't mean that any deity will want to reduce suffering - it simply means that to remain logically consistent I'd choose not to call them a god, it does not mean that they are not a god. You've also got the problem that if god is all powerful then they must be able to alter what is sinful and acceptable - unless of course we take the premise that there is a framework of morality outwith that which a god (should they exist) imposes.

Bit the bullet on that one to see what happened.

Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

Rational to believe in something and being absolutely correct in that belief are not always the same thing. Taking a position on an unknowable isn't the same as taking a position on a present unknown.

Direct hit with that.

The question on Peter Sutcliffe and square circles also led me to bite a bullet inevitably, given my previous answer(s).

 

[Tombstone]

The question on Peter Sutcliffe and square circles also led me to bite a bullet inevitably, given my previous answer(s).

The trouble with the square circles one is that is says something along the lines of God cant make square circles or 1+1=72 or something like that as its a logical impossibility or something.

Thing is..God could do just that if he so wanted, as an all powerful being with no limits he could simply click his fingers and alter language so that "square" meant a type of circle and alter mathematics so that if two identical numbers were added together you automatically add 70 to the answer. Which all kind of negates the bite the bullet point that it makes

 

[Vonhelmet]

Here's my hits...

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.

This doesn't take account of the fact that humanity is able to assuage suffering, nor does it take account of the fact that suffering is - in Christian belief - a consequence of the fall, which was brought about as a result of mankind's failure.

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Loch Ness is of limited size and exists in our world and has been searched at length. God may well exist outside our universe, or be undetectable by modern science. There is no contradiction here, just assumptions on the part of the test setter.

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!

Your honour! He's leading the witness! A "firm, inner conviction" is one thing, but raping and murdering prostitutes is quite another. I didn't go so far as to say that any belief is justified, but the lack of granularity in the questions doesn't allow me to be more specific. Besides, I said that morality can exist without God, so where does that leave me?

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.

Ah, now I'm screwed because there's no option for "neither". God is not constrained by human logic, but that doesn't mean that he can't be discussed rationally. More inane assumptions.

Also interesting to note that if you say that God is omnipotent, then either answer to this question is considered wrong. This is just a silly example of the old heavy stone/immovable force "paradox".

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!

I think the test is rather limiting in terms of considering personal convictions. It's one thing have a personal conviction that God exists and work from there, and quite another to believe that God exists and wants you to do things that everyone would consider reprehensible.