Hey /his/torians
Let's play Battleground God
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/
Post your results in the comments, we can debate or find like-minded peers.
Direct Hit 1
You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:
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.
>I believe the standard of evidence for a physical creature should be greater than that of a deity.
You answered "True" to questions 7 and 14, which generated the following response:
You claimed earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now stated 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. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet of supposing that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution; or (b) take a direct hit, accepting that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to bite the bullet.
>Evolution has many data points taken from the real world, whereas belief in God (Judeo-Christian) just focuses on the intent of one (real/imaginary) being. Evolution could also be a process initiated by a deity.
Loving this biased test!
Perhaps instead of concerning whether or not a belief is rational, consider that humans are free to find truth in whatever they believe, whether or not it is rational.
So perhaps the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, yet if my religion is a traditional worshipping of his sacred existent in his lake, then his existence is truth whether or not he exists.
And thus when asked whether or not something is true or false, one's definition of true and false are subjective. To me, I think there could be sacred power, but I don't particularly believe in it. To others, maybe they haven't proven it, but it is truth (to them).
Basically this test is just a test of rationality concerning something like religion which is so much deeper than rationality. It's a human experience that can't be labeled true or false.
>>826300
I took a hit so I started over and I made it through with no hits.
2 ez
>You navigated the battlefield suffering 3 hits and biting 1 bullet, which represents an overall performance at the 16th percentile (i.e., 16% of scores are worse than yours).
SHIEEEET
Catholic and Classical Theist here.
>God Exists.
True (duh)
>God is a logical possibility (i.e., there is nothing contradictory about the very idea of God).
True.
>If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality.
False (as means for reaching morality just implies God and we can see that without reaching to its implications)
>Any entity that it is right to call God must be free to do anything.
False (anything possible by his own rational structure).
>Any entity that it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as is possible.
False (The title of god is used for a lot of things and doesn't necessitate certain traits immediately)
>Any entity that it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.
False (Again, not 'anything' but anything possible by his own rational structure)
>Evolutionary theory might be false in some matters of details, but it is essentially true.
True (wouldn't be able to get involved with talk of its details but it is true that it is essentially true)
>It is justified to base one's belief about the external world on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction.
False (One would be expected to hold irrational inner convictions for certain things like our innate moral truths and such but that means they are expected, not logically justified)
>Any entity that it is right to call God must know everything there is to know.
False (The title of god is used for a lot of things and doesn't necessitate certain traits immediately)
>Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.
True
>>826651
>If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
True
>People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.
False (Some traits are necessary, some circumstantial. There is no "need" behind it.
>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.
False (since the question already assumes a conception of God I just speak of my own. Divine Command Theory a shit. A shiiiiiit.)
>It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
False (people believe all manner of things based on their own epistemological beliefs, there is no reason to call anything but a flat heavy skepticism of anything "foolish")
>As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
False (Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, not specifically a rejection of deities existing)
>>826654
>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.
False (As I said before, inner convictions do not correlation to logical justification)
>If God exists, She can create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.
False (Again, anything possible by his own rational structure)
>It is justified to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no independent evidence that God exists.
False (One would be expected to hold irrational inner convictions for certain things like our innate moral truths and such but that means they are expected, not logically justified)
>You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 100th percentile (i.e., 100% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 38921 people who have completed Battleground God.
The quiz was obviously made with the Evangelical conception of God in mind.
Come at me.
>>826665
You have Chaby on Skype?
You know he's a girl right?
>>827674
I have no one on /pol/ on Skype and I had no idea. That's neat. Quality artwork.
This thing is far too glib. There are limits to what rationality and absolute certainty and this thing doesn't even begin to acknowledge this.
>>827701
Yeah, I haven't talked to him. I don't go on /pol/ anymore. If you see him tell him Texas said hi.
>>826300
>You've taken a direct hit!
>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!
But this is fucking wrong, I also said that morality is independent of a God's existence, I don't think that this guy was justified in doing what he did because it was morally wrong, not because he based his belief on God telling him what to do. Just because you have an inner conviction doesn't mean it's right, especially if it comes to harming innocents. How exactly is this being contradictory?
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.
>>827716
I took a hit here too.
>>826300
Dammit and I was so close to being "perfect" had like 3 questions left, it was the one about atheism being based off of faith or reasoning and I said it was faith (I think those were the answers).
>You've just bitten a bullet!
>You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that She does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.
>There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?
>
>>827716
They are saying that because you permit beliefs about the outside world can be formed on/justified by conviction you must accept all beliefs by conviction about the outside world as valid.
It's a weak point because they use the strongest version, which many people would dispute
>>827767
Well never mind I just bombed the rest of it. I don't understand the serial killer question though. Yes it's justified to have a strong inner conviction if thats what drives your faith but it IS morally wrong to murder people based on that conviction regardless of what your faith commands you to do.
>>827767
For a 'philosophy' website it doesn't seem to want to accept the fact rational justification for anything at all is not exactly simple
>>827701
I want to run something by you, I had an experience which made me think a little differently about God.
Let's take this concept of trying "prove" or "disprove" God. Now to communicate what I mean let's think about numbers. I think everyone can both agree numbers and God exist as a concept in the same way say dragons exist as a concept.
Now there is a debate about whether numbers 'really exist', for instance Platonic numbers or whether it's something we made up. However no one says "numbers don't exist it's worthless to talk about". Rather it's not that you need to prove numbers exist, the reverse happens the numbers prove other things. There is no need to prove numbers exist, one could even argue that the proof for numbers is as apparent as the existence of the sun.
This doesn't happen with God because the concept of him doesn't do anything. I think trying to prove God exists is a type of atheism. A God that would need proof, greater than that out say proof for the existence of the sun, is ultimately a God that has already been disproven and devalued to zero. Rather a true God should be proving things in the same way numbers prove things. I think what theologians call faith is actually deep doubt. No one needs faith for the sun, you only need faith for things you don't beleive but hope for. A God that is understood by faith or by proof is basically an atheist in denial.
Recap of your Direct Hit
Direct Hit 1
You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:
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.
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.
>>826300
either im to dumb and wasent reading clearly or some of these "contradictions" arent really contradictions
i took 2 hits
>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.
god could be metaphysical wich means physical evidence is impossible to attain
lochness would be physical wich makes evidence for it alot easier to attain, the lack of evidence for god does not disprove god, meanwhile the lack of evidence for lochness makes it alot easier to disprove lochness
>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!
this is pretty dumb, its obviously justifed to the serial killer but the question was if it was justifiable to me, or atleast thats how i read the question, mabey i wasent reading clearly
>>826651
>>826654
>>826665
Imagine, for just one moment, the kind of person you would have to be to get memed on so hard that you end up posting christian anime avatars with a tripcode.
>>828930
yeah it's pretty cringy but this board's been hijacked by roleplaying christfags and /pol/ a long time ago so it's not really unexpected
>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.
How is this biting a bullet? No shit discussion of an all-powerful being is irrational, only an idiot would try to say otherwise.
>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!
wtf is this bullshit?
Who /irrational/ here?
Nessie and God are actually different. Nobody modifies their moral behaviour based on whether or not Nessie exists, only their non-moral behaviour. Thus, belief in Nessie serves no moral purpose, and there is no effective difference in believing in her or not. If you would like to say there is no difference in terms of evidence, sure, but outside of that there is a difference. If belief in God makes you a more moral person, a belief in it is rational.
>You are consistent in applying the principle that 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. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.
>This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God's will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith. But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet.
I don't understand how this viewpoint is remarkable at all.
>>827716
If it is justifiable to place ones faith solely on inner conviction, why is a man who is following his (evil?) inner conviction not justified?
>>829190
Wait, so you are arguing you hold a irrational belief? Then why do you hold it?
>>827777
It didn't ask
>is it justifiable to have a strong inner conviction.
It asked
>is it justifiable to base your beliefs on a strong inner conviction.
The difference being that if those inner convictions tell you to murder someone, in 1.you may or may not be justified in acting on those beliefs, vs. in 2. You ARE justified in acting on those beliefs
>>826433
Except they tell you upfront what this test is about. It's okay if you got a low score, no need to be so salty.
They should start the thing with what is their definition of god.
I answered in the first question: "I don't know", but on the second one i stated that god is illogical and i bit a bullet.
But to me it depends on how you define god.
>>828930
>not knowing the glorious Christ-chan
>>826300
>first question is if god exists
>doesn't provide definition to the word god
Dropped desu
