Battle Ground God

[Yama Tombo]

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm check it out.

[nzric]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D.."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

[stump]

Bit one bullet.....well put together quiz

[Grifter]

3 hits and 1 bullet. good quiz

[judojedi]

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 being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.


The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. 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. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
:D

[thekingster]

Interesting quiz - presents a very sectarian value of God. Basic assumptions are not consistent with various views of God.

[booksie_girl]

1 hit and 1 'bit the bullet' I was also awarded the 2nd highest honour.
I was given a question that either way would have led me to contradicting one of my previous answeres :(

[judojedi]

i got hit on the peter suctcliff question, i was pondering it for some time. i think most people get hit on this question.

[booksie_girl]

No I passed that one. I had the cirlce-square 1+1=72 one, cause I did say if there was a god, then s/he should be able to do anything and be all powerful....

[shunyadragon]

I found the quiz flawed. The assumptions they based there logic on were highly selective. They assumed that if God was capabble of doing certain things he would. They assumed the suffering God would be concerned with stopping was physical suffering. Many feel God would be more concerned with spiritual suffering and death and physical suffering is simple part of the normal course of river of life. they also assumed a gender for god in some of the questions.

[Aravi]

Not hit. No Bullets.

Agnostic viewpoint. Concept that a god may not be all-powerful.

[Shade]

Got the second highest award with two bitten bullets.

Found a couple of the questions frustratingly worded, but there we are. Made me smile regarding the fact that they say maybe it's their world view which is warped and not mine :D

The answer is 'yes' ;)

[aikiMac]

The quiz is a nice start. Good effort. I'd like to see the upgraded version. This one needs to be tweaked here and there. Many of the questions assumed too much. Because of the loaded questions I had to choose A or B when I wanted to choose C. That's frustrating.

Example: Could God make a square circle? Well sure, but it wouldn't be a circle, would it? Helllllo! A circle has a definition. Did the writers of this quiz not take geometry? The definition of circle does not allow a "circle" to have the shape of a "square." This question cannot be answered by a naked true/false.

Example: Could God redefine that which is "sin" to be morally okay? Well sure, but then we wouldn't be talking about the same God now, would we? To alter the definition of sin, God would have to alter his characteristics (such as honesty, for starters) which effectively alters God's very definition. Ahhh. We have a different God now. Oops! This is not good! I can't answer mere true/false to this question because the answer is more than true/false!

Am I the only one who sees that? Apparently so.

Too much math in college, I suppose. I have definitions running through my head all the time, so I usually notice when a person acts against the definition.

[47Ronin]

If I talked to these people in person, I would have gotten the highest score. The questions are stupid, I'll go through later and show you why.

[Shade]

Hi aikimac, i agree with you, hence my comment of questions being frustratingly worded.

That was a clumsy way of saying that the option of answering only true or false was not good for me.

Oh well, as they say in the Soprano's, what are you gonna do?

[Tosh]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
they also assumed a gender for god in some of the questions.

and that made your answer different by how?

2 hits 1 bullet......

I got caught on the 1+1=72 and Pete Sutcliff goddamnit

Bullet was for the Loch Ness thingy...hey just because it might seem ridiculous there is still a chance...I'm a scientist, I deal with 0.000001% of a chance that 100000 people try to log on at the exact same time and therefore makes the spaceship blow up, which may be ridiculous but still has to be considered!

[Dark Blade]

Got through 15 until I bit the bullet!

[Dark Blade]

You have reached the end!

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

You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 169458 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.

[Tosh]

Originally posted by aikiMac


Example: Could God make a square circle? Well sure, but it wouldn't be a circle, would it? Helllllo! A circle has a definition. Did the writers of this quiz not take geometry? The definition of circle does not allow a "circle" to have the shape of a "square." This question cannot be answered by a naked true/false.

Example: Could God redefine that which is "sin" to be morally okay? Well sure, but then we wouldn't be talking about the same God now, would we? To alter the definition of sin, God would have to alter his characteristics (such as honesty, for starters) which effectively alters God's very definition. Ahhh. We have a different God now. Oops! This is not good! I can't answer mere true/false to this question because the answer is more than true/false!




I interpreted it slighty different. I mean literally a GOD figure could change the definition of circle to means a square, but these are human definitions and that means he would have to change our human minds and beliefs in order to do that.

On the second one I totally disagree. I don't consider changing morals dishonest, unfair maybe. Hey he might of made a mistake and was trying to correct it :D i mean she is only Alanis Morrisette ;)


P.s. Before anybody makes a comment on that last bit watch Dogma first please....at the very least for Jay and Silent Bob

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by Tosh
On the second one I totally disagree. I don't consider changing morals dishonest, unfair maybe. Hey he might of made a mistake and was trying to correct it
This all depends on how God was defined in the first place, and that is the basis of my complaint. Which God were the testers talking about? They didn't define their God. Suppose that God is "good." But now we change the definition of "good." We have changed God. Can we change God? Does God change, or is permancy one of his characteristics? See, we didn't define which God we're talking about! And could we change God but still continue on with the same test? I don't think so, but then again, maybe I don't know which God the testers were asking about.

I like the idea of this Game very much. I'd like to play the next version of it.

[Aravi]

It did ask questions to get you to define god, although not to a great extent.

I took the angle that if god\gods existed that there wasn't a prescribed form for them to be in - eg. not automatically all-powerful.

[KenpoDavid]

Originally posted by aikiMac
This all depends on how God was defined in the first place, and that is the basis of my complaint. Which God were the testers talking about? They didn't define their God. Suppose that God is "good." But now we change the definition of "good." We have changed God. Can we change God? Does God change, or is permancy one of his characteristics? See, we didn't define which God we're talking about! And could we change God but still continue on with the same test? I don't think so, but then again, maybe I don't know which God the testers were asking about.

I like the idea of this Game very much. I'd like to play the next version of it.

The point of the thing is to test your intellectual consistency... so use your own definition of God, and test to see if you are consistent in your thoughts about what you believe.

[MichaelV]

You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets...

There was some gray area in some of the questions, but I felt comfortable answering either true or false to all of the questions. The quiz could definitely be a little more in-depth, but overall rather well done, I thought.

[Knight_Errant]

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.

:) :) :)
Having said that, the frigging game is biased.
You may have just taken a direct hit!

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 - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.

RUBBISH!
There is extensive, documented, analysed, scientific evidence for evolution. There is none for god.

[Shaolin Dragon]

Ah, but they quote needing certain, irrevocable proof, NOT evidence.

[Knight_Errant]

Ah, but they're WRONG and show no understanding of scientific standards of proof :D

[Knight_Errant]

to elaborate further, the makers claim:
This amounts to the following claim: In the absence of argument or evidence to show that God doesn't exist, atheism is faith.

Or, more formally (but, before I'm jumped on, not formal in the "formal logic" sense):

If there is no evidence for not-P, then belief in not-P is faith (where P is God's existence).

The makers have committed an elementary logical fallacy here. It doesn't matter that 'if there is no evidencee for not-P, then belief in not-P is faith'. The burden of proof lies with those making irrational claims as to the existence of supreme beings, not with those who refuse to believe in them.
I'm an argumentative sod, ain't I? :D

[Poop-Loops]

2 bullets, one bite.

I don't like the Nessy question. I mean, Nessie is/was thought to of been some sort of dinosaur/dragon deely, right? So it can't develope anything that makes it undetectible.

Some of the logic they use is argueable. The quiz treats everything as black & white, which it isn't.

PL

[wayofthedragon]

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 being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.


The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.


Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Click here if you want to review the criteria by which hits and bullets are determined.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did you do compared to other people?

171865 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
46.11% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.29% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour. :D


Originally posted by shunyadragon
I found the quiz flawed. The assumptions they based there logic on were highly selective. They assumed that if God was capabble of doing certain things he would. They assumed the suffering God would be concerned with stopping was physical suffering. Many feel God would be more concerned with spiritual suffering and death and physical suffering is simple part of the normal course of river of life. they also assumed a gender for god in some of the questions.

Yes I also found flaws.
that's why I didn't get the highest:D

[X51]

You have reached the end!

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

You took 1 direct hit and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 173554 people have so far undertaken this activity.

you can hit back if you got a incorect answer and get a perfect score.

[shipto]

3 hits no bullets

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

in this i answered true because I thought that in his mind he was justified I spose i should have answered false as he was not in the mind of most justified