Hey /his/
Let's play Battleground God
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/
Post your results in the comments, we can debate or find like-minded peers.
manjaw
>refers to God as "She"
D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D
Is it even possible to drop something any harder?
>>276270
Did I do good?
>>276270
I've never seen something so pretentious.
>>276516
This
>>276634
"They" or "It" would have been the neutral choice. "He" would have been conventional. "She" is nothing. Never has "she" been ascribed to God. It's clearly an attempt to appear pc or edgy.
>>276270
>http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/
Easy as fuck.
>>276653
>has no issue with He
>takes issue with She
I swear, you SJWs will stop at nothing to make God a transgender
>>276667
fugg forgot to upload image.
I don't know about anyone else but this fucking test is pulling fast ones on me. It makes many core assumptions on what "God" is and what "unlimited power" is and so the test flat out calls me out on logical errors that are only there because the test makes shitty assumptions.
Just because a God is almighty and can make right left and left right and sin unsinful doesn't mean god would commit sin because he just fucking made it unsinful
fuck you you stupid piece of shit test
>>276721
Lol wut?
Let me guess, you said it was possible for God to desire sin? That's something the test should be pointing out to you. It isn't a logical contradiction, it is just very strange view of god
>>276270
many of these questions are extremely vague
>>276728
I know what went wrong, the test draws a distinction between what is morally acceptable and what is sinful.
What a load of horseshit
>>276516
It was written that way to trigger you.
>>276669
>Complaining about female pronouns for God
>SJW behavior
I think you're a little confused there, buddy.
>'To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your own religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.'
Well, yes
>>276877
Bullet biting means "you may be consistent, but I don't like your answer, so I'll score it like a direct hit anyway".
>second question is whether or not god is a logical possibility
>they haven't actually defined what they mean by god
How am I meant to know if it's a logical possibility or not then? That's the problem with every argument over god, there's no standard definition for what god is whatsoever.
>>276270
This test is fucking stupid, I said one can believe in God if there was no evidence for because there isn't any against either and then when I said its morally wrong for a guy to kill prostitutes because he had a strong conviction to do so it gave me a hit even though it is morally wrong to do so even of God doesn't exist because I said morallity exists without God.
Also it makes you bite bullets if you don't answer like a fedora tipper
>He has view that conflict with mine but they are consistant
>I know! i'll make him bite a bullet
>>277583
Forgot my results
>>276270
Two bites, meh. I'll accept the Question 17 "then God is irrational" one as I agree, but I the "then Sutcliffe was justified!" is just them being snooty. Yes, he was justified in his thinking, that does not mean society wasn't also justified in punishing him. That's what happens when morality is dependent on subjective ideas.
Too lazy to take a screenshot
I bit 3 bullets and took 0 hits
>>277774
Holy shit, that is a lot of bullets. Do you feel conflicted? Did you revise your views?
>>277664
Nah. Morals are personal beliefs. Your morals are not necessarily everyone's morals. Psycho killer had his personal justifications, but he's still a cunt.
You sound kind of mad, friend. Is it because you're average?
wwhy do all these questions center around God?
A very Westernized polarity.
Personally I don't really find it's a relevant question whether God exists or not. It's literally pointless
![1622889-michael-pena-premi-egrave-re-du-film-950x0-1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uLTI56k.jpg "1622889-michael-pena-premi-egrave-re-du-film-950x0-1[1].jpg")
All the questions are phrased in confusing manner should have put things in more layman terms. Kept accidentally contradicting.
>say god doesn't exist
>alright now answer questions about god.
what the fuck?
I didn't feel entirely content with some of my answers but I somehow managed to walk through unscathed.
>>276270
WEW lad
I said that convictions are made entirely from the own person because all of your stimuli are subject to yourself and cannot be trusted.
When asked if you can only believe god with irrevocable evidence apparently I must say you don't need it.
>>279133
And now because of that one fuck up everything anyone starts to believe must be true because their perception of reality is objective.
not bad, right?
>>279133
>logical consistency is BAD because I just know with all my heart that god don't real and also fuck theists!
So much for atheists being "rational", kek
>>279309
I said that everything you experience is totally subjective so you can't really say you are right or wrong but for practicality sake we'll trust our senses and say that there isn't evidence enough for God.
>>276721
>It makes many core assumptions on what "God" is and what "unlimited power" is and so the test flat out calls me out on logical errors that are only there because the test makes shitty assumptions.
I second this strongly.
>>279529
It makes no assumption on God
>>280873
I would like to third their statement.
As C.S. Lewis points out, there are in common usage two meanings for 'impossible': that which cannot happen unless something else happens first (I cannot see the sun, unless it is day) and something impossible of itself (an oxymoron, or that square circle example). Conditional impossibility and nonsense, and nonsense is still nonsense even if you say it about God.
It also poses a problem regarding evidence. Miracles (intrusions of a extra-natural agent into our world) are, by colloquial definition, rare; lasting, recurring evidence can't be found, because the event in question is an exception, not a rule. The evidence we do have, and should expect to have, consists of witnesses and witness testimony.
In christian tradition, this means the gospels, and the books of the canon (and the apocrypha a given tradition acknowledges it), as well as personal revelation (also depending on branch). The verdict will always say there is no evidence if it first declares, or assumes, that witness is inadmissible.
>>282230
What does any of that have to do with the quiz?
>>276270
> If God exists She can make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.
>She
>>276270
> You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in earlier answers you indicated that any entity that it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most, but not all, philosophers and theologians, and 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.
well i really have to blame the wording of the previous question before this
that was unclear
how many times is this thread going to pop up?
>>276653
>there has never ever been a female diety
>>278428
But the question didn't ask whether it was wrong according to the killer's morals or not, it asked if it was morally wrong from the answerer's perspective.
How does this make any sense? I answered that God would have to be omnipotent, so if I stay consistent with that and claim that God can create logical impossibilities that makes me take a hit?
Sure, I realize that God being able to bend the rules like that makes the entire discussion moot as reason and rationality no longer applies then, but if God is real, and is omnipotent as I said, then the entire discussion is moot anyway because God could be warping my mind as I debate.
>>282797
I didn't say that. I said that the Christian God was never implied to be female.
>>282888
Who said we're discussing the Christian God?
>>282890
Fine. No monotheistic God has ever been female.
Eh
