 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
yavoon
|
|
the subjects to the threads in this forum are worse than the puns on the evening news.
well ok not worse.
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.
for one thing, I don't have religious convictions. for another I had already answered that god could do anything, and I think this includes the logically impossible. and thirdly I do believe rational arguments about faith are doomed to fail. so I say the game got gay on me.
that was all I got tho.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
out of curiosity, the other answer would've made me get a direct hit. |
evil trap. we should protest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
"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"
thats what biting a bullet is. pretty weak appeal to democracy in a philosophical battlefield. oh well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
its easy to get the medal of honour if u say god does exist. I went back n did it that way.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
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!
|
Whoo. I got a medal. 
quote:
Direct Hit 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 take the direct hit.
|
quote:
Bitten Bullet 1
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
the question are somewhat illogical when it comes to hits
I can say there is no god and therefore no moralty basis and still say that torturing innoents is morally wrong. If I are for that moral wrongfulness or not, (because I think morals are bullshit), doesn't actually matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
I got several direct hits, but I've spotted, IMO, a flaw in their line of reasoning.
First off, with regards to the Loch Ness Monster/Belief in Atheism questions: When asking about the Loch Ness Monster, they ask if years of attempts to prove it have failed, is it rational to not believe in the loch ness monster. Yet, in regards to athism, they simply say if there hasn't been a proof that god does not exist, is atheism a belief. These are not analogous. In the first example, there have been "years" of attempts to disprove the LNS, whereas in the second example, there is simply no proof that god doesn't exist. In order to make it analogous, the first question would have to be - if we have no proof that the loch ness monster does not exist, is it rational, or a belief, that he doesn't exist.
(Hmm. If the question was, instead, "If, after years of trying to find alien life in outer space, we did not find any, is it rational to assume that there isn't life?", I think some people would probably change their answers... I know I would)
Add to that that the existance (or lack thereof) of the Loch Ness Monster is something verifiable and proveable, whereas the existance of god, IMO, is not something that can be proven or disproven (in our plane of existance).
Take, for example, a box that you cannot open or see in to in any way (or shake or x-ray or whatever). Is it rational to think that there is something inside that box, or is it rational to think that the box has nothing inside it? IMO, it is not rational to assume either one because you simply do not have enough facts for your premise to build a logical ("rational") conclusion.
But then, belief isn't about making a strict logical argument - it's a leap of faith. I don't think god's existance can be proven (or disproven). Then again, I also said god could make square circles.
Last edited by Edan on 30-06-2003 at 15:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
and atheism isn't not believing in god but being hostile to believing in god. so the question 14 evaluation is stupid, too. cancelled there, it seems widely flawed. also the bullet I did bite was because they generalized too much.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-06-2003 13:21
What a great Fez quote. 
It is very late, and I wasn't reading the questions carefully enough. Yes, that is my excuse 
|