Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on January 17, 2003, 11:29:03 PM
-
Kind of a quick and interesting little test I found through another forum. Give it a whirl.
Battleground God (http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi?num=0&hits=0&bullets=0&bulletcount=0&hitcount=0)
"You took zero direct hits and you bit 2 bullets. "
"You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction!"
-
Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!
In the end, doesn't really mean much.
-
85546 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered zero direct hits and bit zero bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.36 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.
7.62% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
47.15% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
I'm God. All fear me. Bow, mortals and wail, for I am a terrible drunk.
-
i cheated (CGI script is weak)
then sent them email that their data is innacurate because i cheated
-
* 85576 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 2 bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.36 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.
* 47.15% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
* 7.62% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
Direct Hit 1
You answered "False" to Question 1, and "True" to questions 2 and 9.
These answers generated the following response:
You've taken a direct hit! You said earlier that God doesn't exist and you claimed that if she does not exist there is no basis for morality. Therefore, you are committed to the view that there is no basis for morality. But now you say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong. But if there is no basis for morality, then you cannot rationally say of any act that it is morally wrong.
Bitten Bullet 1
You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.
These answers generated the following response:
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. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
You chose to bite the bullet.
Bitten Bullet 2
You answered "True" to Question 16.
This answer generated the following response:
You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like 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 religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
tricky bastards...
Tronsky
-
took 1 direct hit and you bit 2 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.36 hits and bites 1.09 bullets. 85586 people have so far undertaken this activity
-
I took 3 direct hits the first time through then tried it again using what I perceived to be the writers logic and got the TPM medal of honor with no hits or bullets. Logic is subjective.
-
i hate tests
-
Weak arguments, the result below is not a contradictiion. To state something 'could' swap good and sin does not contradict the statement 'must want there to be as little suffering' etc.
First of all, you could does not necessarily mean would. Could merely accepts that if there was a a god being it would have the ability but not necesarily use it. Secondly who says all sins cause suffering ;)
This test is weak.
You're under fire!
You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice:
Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful).
Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Logic is subjective.
The purpose of logic, and critical thinking is to remove subjectivity and fallacy from reasoning, in order to make the reasoning valid. The rules of logic are quite definate an not much is left up to interpretation at all.
Do you know of a less subjective system of reasoning?
-
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?
85694 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 1.36 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.
47.16% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.62% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
lol i died
-
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!
"Chicken pot pie exists and is very tasty."
False.
"It is justifiable that Chicken Pot Pie can be very tasty if one has a strong inner conviction of its tasty qualities regardless of different opinions"
True.
YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF! HAHA LOOK AT YOU, LOSER!
...
The creator of this script is a turd. Seems they want to argue, but are too lazy to do it manually so they create a script :P
This IS a weak test.
-
Well, I took 3 direct hits and gave up. This quiz is obviously flawed by introducing true and false choices to paradoxes...such as "Can God make a circle into a square, or 1+1=72 ?"
Just another roadkill put down for believers in God. The ones who design these things aren't all that logical themselves.
Anyone up for a game of tic-tac-toe?
Les
-
Oh well I don't have time to rethink my belief's about God and the existence of God. I believe what I believe and that is all that matters to me.
Thanks for the link I will return when I have time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting only one bullet suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.
The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Originally posted by Leslie
This quiz is obviously flawed by introducing true and false choices to paradoxes...such as "Can God make a circle into a square, or 1+1=72 ?"
How does that make it flawed?
-
although it was kinda stupid, the direct hit thing does show a flawed logic.
the 'bite the bullet' really had nothing to do with logic. it was just if you have beliefs the author found unusual.
btw- no direct hits, 2 bullets.
did anybody get through that thing with no hits, no bullets, while believing in god? it seemed to me that it was set up so that only an athiest or agnostic could make it through and be considered 'logical'
-
I did capt. apathy, the second time through.
Thrawn, what I should have said is that human application of logic is subjective.
-
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. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.36 hits and bites 1.09 bullets. 85759 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.
_____________
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!
-
Thrawn the point you missed is that it said "If SHE.." god isn't a she.. its a genderless being of higher excistence.
-
Zero hits, zero biting the bullet.
I r00l.
-
Originally posted by BlckMgk
Thrawn the point you missed is that it said "If SHE.." god isn't a she.. its a genderless being of higher excistence.
Says you.
From what I understood the the point of the exercise was to check for internal logical consistancy of one's belief in God.
I don't see what difference it makes if the exercise uses the pro-noun "she" to refer to the God...okay, it does indicate a certain amount of bias on the part of the author
I wonder if the issue would be raised if the author referred to God as "he".
PS: Where's miko when you need him?
-
did anybody get through that thing with no hits, no bullets, while believing in god? it seemed to me that it was set up so that only an athiest or agnostic could make it through and be considered 'logical'
LOL!!
Religion is NOT logical!!
Read through this.. don't hate me, I'm not the author. But I do agree with him.
The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history. [Robert Heinlein]
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]
Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!' [Robert A. Heinlein Oct. 21, 1960]
There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. 'The Almighty,' he explained, 'finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores. [Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988) Methuselah's Children]
Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything... just give him time to rationalize it. [Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice]
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. [Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice]
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How does that make it flawed?
Hi Thrawn. That's a very good question mate. I typed in "paradox" for the MSN Explorer search feature. There are many listings, but about the third page or so, there is a link to the Stanford U. philosophy library, where logic is discussed. It is very complicated, and very advanced. An interesting read about the paradox.
I didn't realize there are many different catagories of logic, and that they essentially depend on language, its meaning or syntax, as applied to the written and spoken language. Culture is closely asociated with language, especially "slang." (idiomatic expressions or colloquialisms)
Nash presented it as a test, but it is really a puzzle of logic, which I believe to be a sorite paradox , where small mistakes lead to great contradictions later on...even though the conclusion is false, it is logically proven to be true. Paradoxes always have pairs, and must be "reversed engineered" to make sense. It's the surrealism of the logical world.
I'll try to post a link for those interested. I don't know squat about logic. Just seemed to me that the puzzle Nash presented might have been a sorite paradox.
Les
sorites-paradox (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/)
-
Quote:
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that 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 ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
Quote end
Now, I can search LOCH NESS completely. I have no possibilty to ascertain god's nonexistance by looking at a small part of the universe using current technology. We're comparing finding a - for us physical - animal to finding an allegedly omnipotent entity.
This is some religious roadkill, and I hate this pseudointellectual preaching.
BTW, that was the only bullet to hit this atheist ;)
-
The test is crap.