Battleground God

[levi501]

It's simply a test to see how consistent your beliefs on morality are.

Battleground God

 

[Prince Lucianus]

I took this test years before, and again I stumble on the rapist question.

It's a test where you simply get a hit no matter what.

Lucy

 

[levi501]

not true... I only bit one bullet.

 

[PKJ]

WAIT! DONT SNIPE ME! I said that PEOPLE / SHOULD NOT do stuff out of mere "inner convictions". That's not contradictory. Then I said that ONE GUY / DID do stuff out of mere "inner convictions". I mean, the guy was acting out of "inner conviction" because he was sick in the head.

The question said he was "justified in believing he had to rape", not "justified to rape". Not the same thing.

OH! And again, I got hit for the same reason. Geez.

 

[levi501]

Actually I just took it again and didn't bit a bullet or take a hit.

I know where I sometimes bite a bullet and it's on the rapist one also.

 

[Ledifni]

I took this test years before, and again I stumble on the rapist question.

It's a test where you simply get a hit no matter what.

Lucy

Well...

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 282918 people have so far undertaken this activity

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It's simply a test to see how consistent your beliefs on morality are.

Battleground God

I'm surprised it is still active, I took this some time ago and it is still slanted and flawed. Taking a possiblity or generalized truth only to force it into an absolute is not sincere.
Example:
The mentioned rape scenario... the foundation was laid by what 'may' be justified by an inner conviction despite the external evidence is possible (due to misleading evidence or simply incorrect external indication). Then to take this "possibility" and to apply it as an absolute where the convicted rapist is justified by that newly formed law of reason is not acknowledging that the external evidence 'may' be correct.
Loading the quiz in this manner only to insert the usual jabs of referring to God as "she", etc. shows that the quiz is itself, lacking indepth reasoning. But what do I know, I took a direct hit.

 

[QuantaCura]

edit

 

[QuantaCura]

I took no direct hits and only bit one bullet. The bullet I bit, however, had nothing to do with my beliefs being inconsistent. I had to do with "God can do anything" and the "God can make 1+1=72" and therefore the author of the quiz took the cop-out and said we couldn't have a rational conversation about God so this is pointless.

But that isn't true. The simple matter is that scenario is unlikely, as He seems to like to keep things in our universe consistent for the most part, but even if he decided to totally rework our rational premises, our brains would simply adapt and use these new premises. If God constantly was changing our premises and rationality, then it's true we couldn't have a rational conversation, but since it was changing so often there wouldn't be a point to haivng one.

So in conclusion, I aced that sucker.

 

[Ledifni]

I took no direct hits and only bit one bullet. The bullet I bit, however, had nothing to do with my bleliefs being inconsistent. I had to do with "God can do anything" and the "God can make 1+1=72" and therefore the author of the quiz took the cop-out and said we couldn't have a rational conversation about God so this is pointless.

But that isn't true. The simple matter is that scenario is unlikely, as He seems to like to keep things in our universe consistent for the most part, but even if he decided to totally rework our rational premises, our brains would simply adapt and use these new premises. If God constantly was changing our premises and rationality, then it's true we couldn't have a rational conversation, but since it was changing so often there wouldn't be a point to haivng one.

Ok, give me an example of an alternate set of logical rules that would still maintain the consistency necessary for meaningful communication, and that would allow 1 + 1 = 72. Otherwise, your claim that such a set of rules could exist has no reasonable basis.

 

[QuantaCura]

Ok, give me an example of an alternate set of logical rules that would still maintain the consistency necessary for meaningful communication, and that would allow 1 + 1 = 72. Otherwise, your claim that such a set of rules could exist has no reasonable basis.

Sure it could. As long as you and I have the same set of logical rules, then we could have meaningful communication. You could make up whatever kind of logic you want. If we both had the premise 1+1=72 and we were both using the same logical system (no matter what it was) we would still come to the same logical conclusions.

The question asked if God changed our logical premises which implies He changes them for all of us, so we'd still all be on the same page. If He were to make them different for eveyone, then we could not communicate under natural means. This is possible that He might do this, but the fact of the matter is we can see that God does not do this (at least to not have an impact on ordinary communication, of course, miracles happen every once in a while which are inconsistent with our current logical constructs).

 

[12volt_man]

I'm surprised it is still active, I took this some time ago and it is still slanted and flawed.

It is. Several of the questions were so ambiguous as to render any answer little more than a guess.

Later, in the test, I was asked if I would rather "bite the bullet" and say that "scientists" support the theory of evolution, or to take a hit and say that my beliefs are inconsistent.

The problem is that they don't say what "scientists" or acknowledge that many scientists do not accept the theory of evolution.

In any event, they said that I scored higher than average.

 

[Ledifni]

Sure it could. As long as you and I have the same set of logical rules, then we could have meaningful communication. You could make up whatever kind of logic you want.

If we both had the premise 1+1=72 and we were both using the same logical system (no matter what it was) we would still come to the same logical conclusions.

No, you can't. How about using the following as rules of logic:

If P, then not-P.
If P, then not not-P.

Now, if I make the claim "P," then according to the first rule, "not-P," but according to the second rule, "not not-P." Consistent communication with that set of rules is impossible.

In fact, human philosophy has never been able to uncover a set of logical rules different from the ones we have that still maintains the consistency necessary for communication. You seem to think that such a set of rules could exist -- what is it, then?

The question asked if God changed our logical premises which implies He changes them for all of us, so we'd still all be on the same page. If He were to make them different for eveyone, then we could not communicate under natural means. This is possible that He might do this, but the fact of the matter is we can see that God does not do this (at least to not have an impact on ordinary communication, of course, miracles happen every once in a while which are inconsistent with our current logical constructs).

It has nothing to do with different people using different rules. There is one set of rules that maintains consistency, and we call it logic. Even if we all agreed to use a different set of rules, we still couldn't maintain consistency -- unless you know of a set which would do so?

 

[levi501]

But what do I know, I took a direct hit.

quoted for emphasis.

 

[levi501]

Where I sometimes depending on my mood bite a bullet, but do not take a direct hit...

"It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions?"
TRUE


"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?"
TRUE

If belief based on inner conviction is justifiable, then this rapist was personally justified in his actions. This is still a strange yet consistent view.


Of course when my mood varies I say... FALSE, FALSE... I make it out with a clean bill.

 

[Ledifni]

Where I sometimes depending on my mood bite a bullet, but do not take a direct hit...

"It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions?"
TRUE


"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?"
TRUE

If belief based on inner conviction is justifiable, then this rapist was personally justified in his actions.

Of course when my mood varies I say...
FALSE
FALSE
Then I make it out with a clean bill.

I'm kind of surprised that you would answer "true" to the first question. If it's justifiable to hold a belief regardless of the external evidence, then aren't you saying that it's justifiable to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 even after adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 4?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 282948 people have so far undertaken this activity.

This means, of course, that I am God.

 

[Ledifni]

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 282948 people have so far undertaken this activity.

This means, of course, that I am God.

You'll have to fight me for it. May the omnipotentest man win!

 

[talitha]

I started this, and I got to a dead end on the following - I do not think either choice they offer is correct:

You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it.

Hello? I have to accept the firm, inner conviction of scientists, none of whom were present at the foundation of the world?

Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy.

So now scientific orthodoxy is unquestionably correct?

So you've got to make a choice:
Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

I will not bite this bullet - I am under no personal obligation to accept "what the scientists say" as some kind of gospel truth.

So, the game is flawed, and I cannot in personal integrity finish it.

blessings in Christ alone
tal

 

[Ledifni]

I will not bite this bullet - I am under no personal obligation to accept "what the scientists say" as some kind of gospel truth.

But biting the bullet is exactly what you're doing by saying what you just said. If you'd read what the site says about it, "biting the bullet" happens when you espouse a belief that most people would consider repellent, ridiculous, or obviously false. In this case, you choose to espouse a belief that may not be proved false, but is pretty widely considered a baseless belief, and so you bite a bullet.