http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
This is one of the best online tests I have seen in a long time.
I came out pretty good, only had to bite the bullet once. I was hit once, but I would argue with that…
Hit = 0 BTB 1
I was merrily rolling along until the last 4 questions when I took 3 hits and bit one bullet. Ouch! I disagree on one point, but the others I’ll have to think about.
Bit one bullet.
Stupid Loch Ness Monster shakes fist
Very interesting. I tried to go through it just to give it a look (I’m an atheist), and found that I simply had no opinion on many of the questions - to be expected, I guess. I bit two bullets with mostly hypothetical answers. Interestingly, that seems to be better than most people who really believe in this stuff do. 
These are not opinion questions. If you have ever given any thought to the nature of God you must have idea of what to choose.
No, I have to disagree with that. They’re certainly opinion questions, but anyway- one question I saw was
“Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible.”
I have no opinion on that. My disbelief in the existence of gods has nothing to do with the answer. I can understand that some people would say that if there was a god, he/she/whatever has a great deal to answer for, owing to the suffering in the world. But not everyone thinks that god is obligated to make sense to people, or to do any such thing. There can be argument on whether or not a god that allows this suffering is a just, i.e. moral, god. But I don’t see it as an issue since I don’t think there’s any such creature in the first place.
1 direct hit, 1 bullet
Two hits, but I think the test’s wrong. Here’s my first hit:
This is just playing with words. What was I supposed to say, that evolution is false because there’s no certain proof, or claim that it’s a brilliant thing to believe in God without proof? There’s a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary claims, and besides evolution has evidence, God doesn’t. This is no inconsistency.
The second hit I acknowledge; that was a contradiction on my part.
I was doing fine until th elast 4 questions. Then i got 2 direct hits and bit one bullet.
Though I don’t quite undersand this
I mean, I thought it stood to reason that if a God exists, he/she/it could pretty much do whatever he/she/it wanted, regardless of the boundaries of rationality.
It doesn’t. For starters, what’s your definition of “God”? If a being exists that created the entire Universe, wrote the laws of physics and inspired prophets, is that being still God even if it isn’t omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? What makes a being a god? If aliens created the human race in test-tubes, are they gods? Where do you draw the limit?
Also, it is generally accepted that God cannot defy logic, since it is by definition logically impossible. If God makes a square round, it isn’t a square anymore. That’s the definition of square. How could he possibly make a round square? Why wouldn’t it be a circle?
I don’t know Priceguy. When I was a Mormon, I figured that God being God could do whatever God wants because said God had all the power. Why not create a square circle and call it a square?
Now that I’m an atheist, I really don’t care about the power of a hypothetical god.
Well, that’s not a problem, that’s a square. Claiming it’s still a circle is a problem, however. That’s simply false.
Well, I got one hit and no bite the bullets. btw, what is a “bite the bullet”? But… I wouldn’t say my philosophy is inconsistant, rather that being asked these questions helped me clarify my thoughts. I’m an atheist for what it’s worth.
At first, I answered that if God existed, he must be free to do anything, but when pressed for specifics, I admitted that it’s not possible for him to make 2+2=5, so in hindsight, my answer to the first was incorrect.
2 hits, one bullet
Zero and zero. Just call me Mr. Consistency :D.
- Tamerlane
0 hits, 1 bullet.
One hit, one bite the bullet. Here is a link to some more games by the same people. I thought some of them were quite thought provoking, check it out.
0 hits, 0 bullets.
The test is flawed though, I believe, as it presents many of the questions as black-and-white, when in reality they are not.