Battleground God

[dalovindj]

This is kind of a MPSIMS-ish type of post, but it has to do with religion so I am putting it here.

Check out this site to test your logical consistency and rationality regarding god. I emerged with a perfect score my first try. How about you?

DaLovin’ Dj

[yojimbo]

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

[Earthworm_Jim]

I bit a bullet, but I’m not sure I understand. They pose the question.

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

To which I answered True, as God (by the definition put forth most frequently) must have the power to set the laws of the universe.

I am told

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.

That’s not what I thought I was saying. My thoughts on the subject are that God (were such to exist) has the ultimate power to define what is rational. Given this power, God can create a square circle. I don’t understand the problem with my answer. Any help?

[armedmonkey]

I took one hit and won the medal of distinction, but I have a slight beef with the “contradiction” they found.

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.

10.)If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

14.)As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality

Question 10 posits no evidence for existence. Question 14 posits no evidence for lack of existence. These are not the same.

There is no evidence that the yeti exists, therefore it probably doesn’t. This is perfectly rational. However, the fact that there is no evidence that the chimpanzee does not exist does not mean that it is rational to believe that it doesn’t.

Do I get extra points for pointing out TPM’s logical flaw?

[Earthworm_Jim]

*Originally posted by Beeblebrox *
** Question 10 posits no evidence for existence. Question 14 posits no evidence for lack of existence. These are not the same.
**

Beeble, I think they’re defining atheism as a lack of belief, not a belief of lack, if you take my meaning.

[armedmonkey]

*Originally posted by Beelzebubba *
**I bit a bullet, but I’m not sure I understand. <snip> Any help? **

From the site (my results): "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. "

It seems that your answer was ‘wrong’ only in the sense that it differed from the most prevalent views. shrug It seems to me that only matters if your are playing Family Feud

[armedmonkey]

*Originally posted by Beelzebubba *
**
Beeble, I think they’re defining atheism as a lack of belief, not a belief of lack, if you take my meaning. **

I don’t think so, else why ask if it was a matter of faith? Defining it as a lack of belief would seem to preclude it being a matter of faith.

It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to define atheism that way, but it would mean the site is playing a semantic trick and that answering “matter of faith” to question 14 would never be correct, regardless of the user’s previous answers.

[Earthworm_Jim]

Well, ultimately I think the whole thing is a semantic trick. But I don’t have any evidence for that

Going back to my original question, it seems that question 16 is simply a more detailed version of questions 5, "Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. "

If answering True to that question is not biting a bullet, then one MUST answer True to 16 to be logically consistent. Otherwise, answering False to 16 invalidates 5.

[Monty]

My results:

You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.29 hits and bites 1.07 bullet. 33323 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.

&

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 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!

For those who had to bite one or more bullets, the site makes this caveat:

First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.

Great game!

[Lemur866]

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

Yep, Atheism sure is logically consistent.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I got nailed by the same thing Beeblebrox did and I completely agree with Beeblebrox.

If you have never seen the Loch Ness monster and despite numerous attempts to find it I believe it is rational to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. Ultimately you take its existence or lack thereof on faith since there is no definitive evidence either way.

Same goes for Atheists. It is rational for a person to believe there is no god but ultimately it is a matter of faith on their part just as it is faith for those who do believe in god’s existence.

[ResIpsaLoquitor]

I agree with Beezlebubba that a lot of this site was in semantic tricks. I found the evolution questions particularly annoying, because I was forced to choose either “true” or “false.” I don’t HAVE a position on evolution, because I’m not a scientist. As a Christian, I only take the position that however life came about, God was behind it. The test wouldn’t take that into consideration: it assumes that my religion and my scientific understanding either have to be consistent or diametrically opposed.

Very annoying.

[Liberal]

The exact “semantic trick” that they played is called amphiboly. To quote from the cite, The Atheism Web: Logic & Fallacies

Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.

The test’s hit says

This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God’s freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything. (italics theirs)

But the question the so-called hit references doesn’t say anything about “literally”. It says simply

Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.

Thus, the author(s) misdirected like a street magician.

How they would have phrased the question had they been honest is as follows:

“Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do literally anything, including things that aren’t things at all.”

That would have shown it to be the jabberwocky that it is, so it’s not surprising that they didn’t ask it that way. And besides, “power” is an amphibolous word. Talk about ambiguous.

[Mangetout]

There just weren’t enough answer options for nearly all of the questions; it is completely unreasonable and possibly even irrational to expect every issue to be boolean.

(although I somehow managed to scrape through without a hit or a bite, don’t know how; is it a trick?)

[clairobscur]

I too disagree with the direct hit I received. I stated there was no rationnal basis for moral beliefs then stated it was morally wrong to torture babies (or something similar), which was considered as a logical contridiction.

I disagree with this, since I never stated that my morals were rationnal.

Also, It seemed to me that “god” was unsuficiently defined. In several instances, I could have answered “true” as well as “false”. I guess one should begin the test with a clear idea of the kind of god one is talking about.

[barton]

I bit one bullet (I’m agnostic so I answered false to almost everything save evolution) - the bullet was on the evolution question vs. the proof of God existing one.

It informed me it’s a strange opinion to demand more proof of God’s existence than evolution’s correctness. Rrrirgght. We can empirically test the first, but not the second by any means I know of, so I demand a bit more of God.

[elucidator]

Any attempt to reasonably discuss and/or dissect God by way of rational syllogism is laughable. Its like trying to stuff a cloud into a pillowcase.

At best, such an approach leads to confusion, at its worst, it leads to theology.

[hajario]

0 hits. 0 bullets. Medal of Honour, Baby!

Haj

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Beelzebubba *
I bit a bullet, but I’m not sure I understand. They pose the question…[square circle]…
To which I answered True, as God (by the definition put forth most frequently) must have the power to set the laws of the universe…
That’s not what I thought I was saying. My thoughts on the subject are that God (were such to exist) has the ultimate power to define what is rational. Given this power, God can create a square circle. I don’t understand the problem with my answer. Any help?

I looked at it as such: she makes a square circle. Now the “circle” is a “square” and a “square” is a “circle.” Has anything really changed? Nah, so god can do no such thing.

[erislover]

BTW… bit the “rapist” bullet.