God Game

[ydoaPs]

Here is a short game/quiz to see if your beliefs about god(s) contain certain contradictions.

 

I got a perfect score. How'd you do?

[Moontanman]

Here is a short game/quiz to see if your beliefs about god(s) contain certain contradictions.

 

I got a perfect score. How'd you do?

 

I bit one bullet!

[ydoaPs]

I bit one bullet!

IIRC, that just means you believe something super crazy, but not contradictory. Direct hits, otoh, indicate contradictions.

[zapatos]

I took the following hit:

 

"Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!"

 

I was surprised I took a hit. I was thinking that I could not justify basing my beliefs with no regard to external evidence, but I don't have a problem with others doing it. I mean, if Peter Sutcliffe really thinks God is telling him to do something, then he is going to feel justified doing it. If you believe in God, I would think you believe He trumps all external evidence.

 

Nice exercise!

[Ringer]

I took a hit;

Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!

 

 

Yet earlier I said that God couldn't make immoral things moral by saying so. I didn't contradict myself on the basis that the question was not about morality but of god's will.

Another;

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

I don't really remember the wording of the questions so all I can say is BLAST!

[Edtharan]

I disagree with the conclusions in one of the questions. In it I said that evolutionary theory was true, but then later I said that one needed irrocoverabel proof that God exists. the thing is, evolutionary theory has a mathematical proof of ist existance, and thus satisfies my "irrocoverable proof" need, however, the person who wrote that did not know about how evolutionary theory has a mathematical proof, thus it gave me a hit.

 

In other words, the test is not correct because it treats evolution as only having inductive reasoning for it and not the mathematical proof (which the auther must not have heard of).

 

btw: The proof of evolution comes from algorithmic theory and computing - which is still maths.

 

So the result I would get from the test does not actually demonstrate any contradictions I hold. It thought I had a contradiction, when I don't actually have one.

[Mr Skeptic]

Edtharan, there may be mathematical proof that evolution is possible, but that doesn't translate to mathematical proof that it actually happened. (which would be impossible to have mathematical proof for anyways).

 

I got caught by that question too, since I assumed the question was meaningful, ie that by "certain, irrevocable proof" it meant something that was in theory possible for the most certain beliefs we have about the natural world.

[StringJunky]

Similar to Editharan, I took a hit on the Evolutionay question saying that it was true but then I demanded later that the existence of God required proof. As far as I'm concerned, Evolution is to all intents and purposes a fact....it has evidence...God has none.

[Sisyphus]

I bit a bullet in saying that "if god exists she can square the circle," since that makes all rational discussion meaningless. I changed it to false, and it was a hit, because earlier I had said that a god could do anything. Of course, I don't think that it's possible to have much of a coherent definition of "god" in the first place, so I filled in those questions pretty casually. Yes, it's contradictory. I knew that ahead of time! Aren't I only a hypocrite if I said that "god exists?"

 

Otherwise, perfect score.

 

I'm surprised you guys got caught in the certain, irrevocable proof thing. Personally, all I would need is reasonable likelihood.

[ewmon]

This looks like a perfect score, but I don't know what hits and bullets mean.

 

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets.

[mississippichem]

I disagree with the conclusions in one of the questions. In it I said that evolutionary theory was true, but then later I said that one needed irrocoverabel proof that God exists. the thing is, evolutionary theory has a mathematical proof of ist existance, and thus satisfies my "irrocoverable proof" need, however, the person who wrote that did not know about how evolutionary theory has a mathematical proof, thus it gave me a hit.

 

In other words, the test is not correct because it treats evolution as only having inductive reasoning for it and not the mathematical proof (which the auther must not have heard of).

 

btw: The proof of evolution comes from algorithmic theory and computing - which is still maths.

 

So the result I would get from the test does not actually demonstrate any contradictions I hold. It thought I had a contradiction, when I don't actually have one.

 

Edtharan, there may be mathematical proof that evolution is possible, but that doesn't translate to mathematical proof that it actually happened. (which would be impossible to have mathematical proof for anyways).

 

I got caught by that question too, since I assumed the question was meaningful, ie that by "certain, irrevocable proof" it meant something that was in theory possible for the most certain beliefs we have about the natural world.

 

I had to bite a bullet there as well. I wish the first question would be re-worded to say "which is of these scenarios is most likely?"

 

a. Though a negative can't be proven, the existence of a god is highly unlikely as there is scant or no evidence to suggest that a god exists.

 

b. There is no way a human can know whether or not a god exists.

 

c. God exist

 

In their version of the test I had to pick "God does not exist". Then that forced me to bite a bullet later on in the test about God being able to pull a moral polarity switch resulting in reciprocal good and evil. In my example above I still would've picked "a"; I'm a hard atheist, but not so hard that I can claim the nonexistence of something without adding the "but ultimately I don't know, this is just what the data strongly doesn't suggest" caveat. Saying God doesn't exist without acknowledging that that decision is based on a lack of evidence and not affirmative evidence opens one up to getting logically "called-out" in philosophy debates. I'm a hard atheist but I will never believe in the non-existence of a god with the same blind fervor that religious people believe in one. My choice is an intellectual one, and absolutes are hard to come by.

 

That was the only bullet I bit though. I took no direct hits.

Edited January 5, 2011 by mississippichem

[tomgwyther]

it's a fun test, but it is fallible. i effectively stated that a being with god-like characteristics would be morally good.

Then I bit a bullet because I reasoned that a god-like entity - being omnipotent - could if he so chose; be evil.

I also ran into the same problem that others have encountered... The one about evolution.

The quiz forces you to make assertions which you would not otherwise make, and then calls you a hypocrite.

There needs to be an 'I Don't know' or 'Skip' response on the drop-down menu instead of just true or false.

 

Many of the questions contain more than one clause, thus a true/false answer is meaningless.

 

The test - although fun - is flawed

Edited January 5, 2011 by tomgwyther

[John Cuthber]

I'm a staunch atheist so I couldn't get through the third question

"Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything."

There is no being which it is right to call God and therefore it is impossible to rationally assign properties to it.

I couldn't answer yes or no to that any more than I could answer the question "Do unicorns have gall bladders?"

 

How did you decide what properties God would have?

[mississippichem]

I'm a staunch atheist so I couldn't get through the third question

"Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything."

There is no being which it is right to call God and therefore it is impossible to rationally assign properties to it.

I couldn't answer yes or no to that any more than I could answer the question "Do unicorns have gall bladders?"

 

How did you decide what properties God would have?

 

You're right, the test should be:

 

God exists:

 

a. True

 

b. False

 

If you marked "b" the test is complete and you have a perfect score. Deliberating over the speculative properties of a non-existent being is quite futile and inconsistent in itself.

[michel123456]

One bullet for:

"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 ...blahblahblah." I see no problem.

 

And i agree with Miss issippichem.

Edited January 5, 2011 by michel123456

[tomgwyther]

According to their site, this test was focus grouped and refined extensively, I can only advise that their focus group invest in some contact lenses.

There is another similar questionnaire called 'Philosophical Heath Check' containing similar errors.

I'm tempted to email them and send them over here to SFN so as they might improve the bullet-holed test.

[StringJunky]

Mississippichem is dead right.

[ydoaPs]

a. Though a negative can't be proven

p->q

~q

~p

 

 

Look at that, I just proved a negative!

[mississippichem]

p->q

~q

~p

 

 

Look at that, I just proved a negative!

 

I just got pwned

 

I've always wanted to say that; didn't think it would be me.

[John Cuthber]

Outside of maths, has anyone proved that there is no proof of a negative?

If so, is that proof of the non existence of such proofs?

[michel123456]

Outside of maths, has anyone proved that there is no proof of a negative?

If so, is that proof of the non existence of such proofs?

 

no.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm a staunch atheist so I couldn't get through the third question

"Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything."

There is no being which it is right to call God and therefore it is impossible to rationally assign properties to it.

I couldn't answer yes or no to that any more than I could answer the question "Do unicorns have gall bladders?"

 

Yeah, it would be like asking whether Goldilocks is a blond who likes things "just right", or whether dragons have claws, or like whether the item in your proof by negation has the properties you say it has when doing your proof, etc. Just because you don't believe something exists doesn't mean you can't talk about its properties, nor does it mean you can't believe it has contradictory properties. Of course, if it has contradictory properties that is fine if you don't believe it exists.

[michel123456]

I wonder if a true believer can pass this test without harm. IMHO it has been made by atheist for atheists and it is just a game not to be taken too seriously.

[ydoaPs]

I wonder if a true believer can pass this test without harm. IMHO it has been made by atheist for atheists and it is just a game not to be taken too seriously.

You can easily pass as a theist. I don't know the religious affiliation of the creators.

[lemur]

God is a personification of a metaphor. It is a way of expressing the idea that creative power occurs in diverse realms, including nature and human thought and action. Any specific descriptions of God or philosophizing (theologizing?) about what He/She/It/They are is an expression of the creative power that God represents as a personified metaphor. Therefore, how can you say that the metaphor doesn't exist when it is an example of what it describes in and of itself? The only way that you can really insist that God doesn't exist is if you insist on a very narrow materialist definition in which the personification of God as a human-like conscious being is taken literally. If you take the personification as simply a human/spiritual tool for expressing something that is otherwise difficult to relate to, it's not hard to see how God exists in the manifestations humans attribute to Him/It/Them. If you define God as creation, it's hard to insist that creation does not exist since things are being created and re-created/transformed all the time by humans as well as nature.