Hey erislover. Agreed, morality can exist outside God, and I so answered Question 2. From that, it does not follow however that morality must exist outside God. And recall that Question 12 posited as an assumption that God exists, and so therefore was really asking whether timelessness of morality is a necessary attribute of God.
All of which is a side issue. I take it you also got a bullet on 15 notwithstanding answering 12 differently. The significant problem, then, is 7 v. 15. Agreed, it’s an extreme hypothetical problem. But my objection is more in the nature of your response to SuaSponte.
FYI, so we’re on the same page, my responses were the same as yours, except I answered Question 1 false (rather than don’t know), true to Question 9 (torture morally wrong) and true to Question 12 (which, as noted, we interpret differently).
No, logic is about conclusions that are made indepedent of facts. For instance “If (A and B) then (A or B)” is true regardless of whether A/B are true. If something is a syloogism, then it’s a syllogism no matter what the facts are.
But it’s not true that your syllogism is logical. So really it’s a question of both.
I also “bit the bullet” on the 1+1=72 thing. I reasoned that God should be able to define reality however he wishes.
I answered “false” on the serial rapist thing. It seemed sort of circular. “X believes A. Therefore, is X justified in beleiving A?” Justified in believing? You’ve just stated that he does believe. So I took the question to mean, “X believes A. Is he correct?” and I answered “No.” Which was apparently the right answer.
For the Loch Ness Monster question, I answered “False” on the basis that “No evidence” does not equal “Proved false.”
That’s a fun site. I’m going to go back and see what happens when I change some responses.
You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.29 hits and bites 1.06 bullets. 36874 people have so far undertaken this activity.
So, what does this mean? Is it cool to bite bullets? Is foolish bad, and should I assume that rationality is the ultimate yardstick?
I don’t really get it.
Tris
“” is not a recognized response. ~ Some interface programmer ~
Suppose someone is on a jury. Would it be possible for them to have enough evidence to feel justified in believing that the defendent is guilty, but not enough to be justified in acting on that belief (i.e. voting to convict)?
Hmm, I’m not sure Ryan. I can see why some might choose not to act on a justified belief, but I can’t really think of a way that one wouldn’t be justified in acting on a justified belief.
