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.
>hurr durr there is no certain proof that the evolution theory is true
>People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.
Uh-oh
Can you stop shilling this piece of shit test already. We've been over this, it's a garbage.
>>332149
Isn't absolute certainty impossible? I'm pretty sure Descartes figured that out
>So your idea of a god differs from ours?
>Too bad, you take a hit, a bullet, a spanking, a jerking off, a faggot like OP etc.
>>332229
Doesn't it just ping you if you contradict yourself? Not that you can't get out of a contradiction by making a distinction, but I only got hit because of some slight inconsistency between my standards of justification for God and the Loch Ness Monster.
>>332245
Contradicting yourself is taking a hit I believe.
Biting a bullet is just to notify you that your philosophy has lead you to something that is absurd to most people, so it is worth pointing it out (Like some people do this test and lead to a philosophy where nothing ever has to be justified to be true, so flying spaghetti monster is real)
>>332229
I think after it has been posted a few times when the board was still new, it's now simply being used as bait
>this test is about being logically consistent
>you took a hit!
>although you were logically consistent you still took a hit because your ideas differ from mine
it's as retarded as it can get
>>332087
>Calling God She
>Using must in an ontologically wrong statement
This is the best bait that has ever existed.
>>332149
Evolution is how a species bound in time views the actions of an eternal God who exists outside of time.
>>332259
It says right on the main page:
>Also, if you answer in a way that is rationally consistent, but which has strange or unpalatable implications, you’ll be forced to bite a bullet - accept something many find unpalatable and would view as being a major problem.
>>332268
Do you prefer your god with a penis?
>>332268
>Evolution is how a species bound in time views the actions of an eternal God who exists outside of time.
wat?
>>332279
She means the being in question has the capacity to reproduce. Since God is by definition eternal and exists outside of time he has no gender since reproduction is impossible on an infinite timescale.
Gender less beings are referred to as Male in biological nomocloture.
>>332087
>God is a She
>I say God can do anything
>"If God exists She can do anything like make square circles or make 1+1=79"
>true
>YOU'VE TAKEN A HIT
What horseshit is this?
>>332324
>She means the being in question has the capacity to reproduce.
Wrong. Consider sterile women or transgender women.
>Gender less beings are referred to as Male in biological nomocloture.
Wrong. They are referred to as "it" or "they".
>>332333
Did you even read the main page before taking the quiz?
>Of course, you may go along with thinkers such as Kierkegaard and believe that religious belief does not need to be rationally consistent. But that takes us beyond the scope of this activity, which is about the extent to which your beliefs are rationally consistent, not whether this is a good or a bad thing.
>>332268
"He" was both male gendered and gender-neutral, until feminists got their panties in a wad.
>is god capable of x
>no reference to if omnipotent god or not
>>332351
And I'm guessing "Father" and "Son" were also gender neutral? And only males being allowed to be priests is also part of the christianity's gender neutralness?
>>332299
Evolution is just the result of the divine will in eternity acting upon the world in time. Just as heat or electrical energy must be transferred to mechanical energy in order to do work on a lower wavelength, so must the eternal will be translated into mundanities.
>>332349
How is that not consistent? I said that a God is able to do anything and was slapped for saying so later
>>332358
The quiz is about being consistent, not answering factual knowledge about any particular god. That's why you can answer the first question with "yes" or "no" and still get a perfect score.
>>332362
There can be no consistency if 1+1=3 or some shit. Theologians almost always define omnipotence as "being able to do all things that are doable". Read what the site says more closely about this issue after you answered it.
basically the quiz forces you to declare yourself a rationalist or empiricist. If you know enough about logic, you'll take no "logic hits" but you'll take hits based on the incredulity of the quiz designer.
tldr; basically total garbage.
>>332376
>being this buttmad about contradicting yourself
>>332279
Unpalatable implications do not make my logic wrong. The fact that you now mention the inherent flaws of your test and decided it is part of the test might make the test at least follow its own rules, but it is no more than moving the goalpost. Your test is still biased and therefor, utter and total dogshit.
>>332087
>comparing a theoretical physical entity (such as Monster of Loch Ness) to a ungraspable metapyhsical entity (such as God)
This test is absolute shit
>>332387
They don't compare them, they just compare your standards of justification for something existing
>>332359
I'm a muslim tho. We don't have priests or believe that God has a son ( Far be it from him.)
>>332338
>Wrong
>Continues to argue in changing terms about an unchanging being
English is a shit language which is why God doesn't speak in it. Bitches be changing the terms because of their "Feelings"
>>332333
God plays by the rules he sets. Everyone gets the same unloaded dice
>>332395
>God plays by the rules he sets. Everyone gets the same unloaded dice
so technically, he could have set different rules, right?
What is this result?
>In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (such as 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 own religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
>>332387
Yeah, I also took a hit there...
I seem to be the only one to have taken a hit on the serial killer question, though... I would like to see the wording on that one and on the one about inner conviction one more time...
>>332391
That's why the test is shit, you can actually proof that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because well it's supposed to be a physical entity, if the entity isn't there in the physical world and this entity doesn't exist.
As God is not a physical entity a disproof of existence through absences is impossible because God is not in this physical world
>>332395
I also got a hit that God can choose what's a sin and what isn't.
>hur, that conflicts that a God should want what's least harmful
Says who? Who knows currently what's a sin in God's eyes?
>>332403
>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.
How can it be more clear? The test is about rational consistency. A god that doesn't have to be rationally consistent is pointless for this quiz
>>332408
The test doesn't say it is a logical contradiction, read the text more closely
>>332415
It's not a logical consistency to say God can desire sin, because the definition of sin is ambiguous (though it is usually defined as something God doesn't want).
The quiz just points this out to you
>>332422
It's not because you're comparing 2 different types of proofs, 2 different kinds of absence of evidence, treating them as they were the same is inherent irrational
>>332433
>logical consistency
Meant logical contradiction
>>332419
So I win?
Why do I have to posit all of these attributes of a god when I don't think SHE exists.
>>332434
So let's just say the loch Ness monster is immaterial or whatever. You believe in it now?
>>332360
take your meds
>>332443
>hey let's just change one thing
No, just no, the Loch Ness Monster is a story of a sighting of an actual living thing swimming in that lake, its properties are established, so if you want to use it use it correctly.
Now if the test would have used a mountain/wood spirit that would be of course different.
The serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe, had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to kill prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in murdering his victims.
What is this asking us? Is it asking if we have a theological problem with his concept of God or is it asking if we think what he did is morally okay because he justified it on a strong inner conviction?
Oh I just got that I am affirming the choices selected in past, in form of an argument,
rather than that I am slapping in what I think, you shouldve told me sooner guys.
94th percentile
>>332601
I took a bullet on this and quit. I can't see how saying true to this was contradictory or whatever
>>332954
Had to bite the bullet saying there needs to be more proof for God than evolution too?
>>332601
It's supposed to catch you on the firm inner belief question.
Maybe you need to understand that you're not always right, kid.
;^)
I just believe in Zeus and say he's not omnipotent or omniscient or even a good guy. This resolves pretty much all the dilemmas associated with traditional abrahamic monotheism. Say what you will about paganism, it's at least internally consistent.
>if God can make 1+1=72 then it's pointless to talk rationally about God bawww
Yeah, that's exactly the point of God, God is beyond human comprehension
Jesus Christ I don't know if I'm too dumb, or if other people are dumb
>>333368
I was going to answer you, but then I saw the little :) and realized it was bait. Thank you for making it easy.
>>333477
oh, didn't read that actually
It seems many of you bit the same bullet as me.
>>332087
You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 1 bullet, which represents an overall performance at the 94th percentile (i.e., 94% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 33285 people who have completed Battleground God.
You can find a list of questions here (page will open in a new tab).
Recap of your Bitten Bullet
Bitten Bullet 1
You answered "True" to Question 17, which generated the following response:
In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (such as 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 own religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
>It is strange to say that God is a logical impossibility, but you don’t know whether God exists. If God is a logical impossibility, then surely She can’t exist, and so you know that She doesn’t exist.
But can't God, by virtue of being God, exist outside of logical possibility?
>>332087
>serial killers aren't justified
YOu TOOK A HIT!!!1
>believing that it is justified to base beliefs on a firm inner conviction means I think murder is okay
fucking shit
>consetometer
>your predicted score is 0%
top kek
>>332087
>Refers to god as "She".
so much hate
stop making this thread btw
>>334851
If it is justified [for a person] to base beliefs on inner conviction, then it is justified [for a person] to murder based on inner conviction.
>>believing that it is justified to base beliefs on a firm inner conviction means I think murder is okay
The "hit" doesn't imply that _you_ think that murder is okay, it implies that you think it is justified for _a particular person_, which is consistent with your answer.
>>334878
oh, fair point. I didn't read carefully.
>>334878
No it's not a contradiction at all. One is talking about beliefs and the other actions. If the second question was do you belief that all who violate gods will should die but don't act on in then it makes sense
>>335672
Read more carefully. The question was
>The serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe, had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to kill prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in BELIEVING that he was carrying out God's will in murdering his victims.
>justified in BELIEVING
So both questions are about beliefs about the outside world based on inner convictions
>>332087
This game uses irrelevant semantics to try and get at people, especially with evolution.
>>332333
czech'd
>>332087
The test never defines god or asks you to provide one.
It's shit.
>>332458
That's not too far-fetched, faggot.
t. Catholic rationalist
>>335801
That's not the point of it
>>336145
So what'd you answer for each question?
Curious how compatible your answers are with the Catechism.
Based K-god btfo this nigga before he even made he test
>>339187
1. Don't know
2. True
3. False
4. True
5. False
6. False
7. True
8. False
9. True
10. True
11. True
12. False
13. True
14. False
15. False
16. False
17. False
18. False
>"Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not in fact think that a belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!"
>hurr durr you believe this so you must support extremism
fuck off
>>339845
>1. Don't know
Doesn't that directly contradict the Nicene Creed?
>3. False
Then what is the basis of morality? Don't you view God as the source of all good and sins God has defined as evil?
>6. False
Isn't omnipotence one of God's attributes, as described in the Catechism section 268?
>15. False
So let me get this straight. You are
>a catholic
>that doesn't know if god exists
>and thinks atheism is rational
wat
"Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not."
>an entity that we can thoroughly search for and is a solid manifestation vs an entity that could be anywhere/nowhere and hold the form of anything/nothing
>>340126
>an entity that could be anywhere/nowhere and hold the form of anything/nothing
God can be nothing and nowhere and still exist?
>>340101
Doubt is essential to Catholicism, and of course atheism can be rational. There is nothing inherently illogical about the possibility of there being no God.
>Then what is the basis of morality? Don't you view God as the source of all good and sins God has defined as evil?
Morality can be created by humans independently from that of God. This is made obvious by the fact that there have historically been many very different moral codes, those can't all have been dictated by the same God. They are all rooted in religion, but most religions are false.
>Isn't omnipotence one of God's attributes
Omnipotence doesn't include the power to do absolutely everything, including what is logically absurd. For instance God "can't" create a rock so heavy he himself couldn't lift it, or make a square circle as one of the questions asks, because those things don't make any logical sense.
>>332087
>It is strange to say that God is a logical impossibility, but you don’t know whether God exists. If God is a logical impossibility, then surely She can’t exist, and so you know that She doesn’t exist.
>SHE
*tips fedora*
Second question and already retarded. Just because I don't know if a God exists because the very concept of a God is beyond my perception and understanding and thus I cannot give an absolute judgement on that matter without being intellectual dishonest doesn't mean that in my logical framework a God is impossible.
Misread the second question
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>340152
In theory, yes. It's pretty much fact that there are plenty of things that the human brain is too feeble to comprehend. We could perceive the existence of a god as a lack thereof, but in reality, that would just be the only way we could comprehend it.
>>340155
>Morality can be created by humans independently from that of God.
So morality is relative?
>>340214
everything is relative, friend
-t. postmodernism
>>340203
Your god is nonsense then, and outside the scope of the quiz
>>340214
In the sense that several different moral codes exist. But only one moral code actually emanates from God, and that's the one taught to us by Jesus Christ.
>>340155
>Doubt is essential to Catholicism
uhhh... I'm pretty sure to be Catholic you HAVE to believe that god exists at least, considering the Nicene Creed and all
>>340228
>In the sense that several different moral codes exist. But only one moral code actually emanates from God
So why should we follow God's rather than someone else's? It's all just relative
>>332087
>She
why
>>340171
This desu
i'm not god and i can make square circles and make 1+1=79
for the first one, just take the unit circle in the maximum norm, and for the next one, you can either use the symbol 79 for two, or work in an object in which addition is defined that way
something tells me this idiot doesn't know the first thing about topos theory
> Of course, you may go along with thinkers such as Kierkegaard and believe that religious belief does not need to be rationally consistent. But that takes us beyond the scope of this activity, which is about the extent to which your beliefs are rationally consistent, not whether this is a good or a bad thing.
Looks like I was doomed to fail from the start.
>>340101
The Nicene Creed is shouldn't be taken seriously. It was more of a dick-waving party for Consantine than a serious theological debate.
>>340356
>Well he created the universe and mankind so he probably knows what's up
But it doesn't matter how smart he is if morality is subjective. If he likes Bach more than Mozart that doesn't mean Bach is better than Mozart.
>>332087
>http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/
Failed every question after 15, but did flawlessly before it.
>>341827
What? Bach and Mozart aren't morality, and actually even that example fails because "God likes Bach better than Mozart" could only mean that Bach is objectively better than Mozart.
God isn't just some fucking guy.
>hurr if god is omnipotent then he must be able to do impossible shit like make circles square.
No, this line of thinking is invariably retarded.
Our terminology for shapes is a fully man-made concept, if god were to beam down a square circle into the world we would recognize it not as a circle but as a square because that's the description assigned to stuff that looks like that.
>>332087
>Answer about a dozen questions
>Close up the test
Pretty silly thing, to be honest. Make sure not to introduce any sense of nuance here.
>If one cannot find any evidence for the Loch Ness monster, can it be rationally justified to say it doesn't exist?
>Sure.
>Does one need evidence to believe in God?
>No.
>HIT
Okay, whatever. You could directly replace Loch Ness with God and those answers still hold, but I guess recognizing belief ≠ rational justification doesn't make for a good trap card.
Or...
>Psycho killer believed he was following the word of God, was he justified?
>According to whom? Oh, I don't get to ask? Well, I guess he was in his own eyes...
>UBITBULLET!!
Right'o then.
As an aside:
>God is a SHE
Why not just go with "It"? Fuckin' silly shit.
>>342011
“Cats are cute” reports that all patterns of sensation referred to by the word 'cat' belong to another , larger or more abstract pattern of sensation referred to by the word 'cute'. Unlike 'mammal', however, 'cute' is a conditional term. Since 'mammal' always refers to the same set of sensations, its meaning is not conditional on any other fact. Once known, its meaning never changes from one circumstance to another, so long as our “codebook of words” remains unchanged. However, 'cute' refers to the pattern of sensation that we describe as 'what someone thinks is charmingly attractive'.
The meaning of 'cute' will always be conditional on another, ever-variable fact: namely, what a particular _individual_ refers to with the word 'cute'. We can thus know when something is cute to us, but we cannot automatically know whether it will be cute to someone else. We shall call this an 'evaluative' term. So why are 'cute' and other evaluative terms not unconditionally defined in a common lexicon? Because these words refer to values, and different values are often possessed by different individuals. To call something 'cute' is to say something about what _you_ think or feel about the thing being so called – it communicates something not just about the cat, but about _you_.
A statement like “you ought not to torture cats” is partly evaluative (like “cats are cute”) and partly factual (like “cats are mammals”). The evaluative part is the implied claim that certain values (like “you don't want to cause pain”) are possessed by _everyone_ to whom the statement is addressed (so, “you ought not” because, if you think about it, you really won't want to). The factual part is the implied claim that certain actions will probably have effects (like “causing pain”) that fulfill or contradict those values.
Pretty easy, bruh
>>332087
Interesting idea, but in practice sometimes quite stupid, as one of the first question was about logic,but they seem to think there's only bimodal logic . Topkek
>>332351
Gee, I wonder why a male specific term would be synonymous with human in a male dominated society.
>>332087
Got 1 direct hit, and ate 1 bullet.
>>344982
Beliefs?
