6 ms·

Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

28 points by anthonyb 16y ago

Deestan 16y ago
A useful and somewhat though-provoking test. But, it feels really frustrating not being able to argue back; especially when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable", etc) that I disagree with. :-)
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  You don't have to get very technical to use the meaning of "irrevocable proof". Interpreting the definition to mean 'proof that cannot be refuted' is pretty straightforward, and not a technicality at all.
  - andymorris 16y ago
    What about the everyday meaning of "proof" and "irrevocable proof" as "strong evidence" and "stronger evidence" respectively? If I saw someone leaving the house of a woman (not his wife) with lipstick on his face and messed up clothes, I think I'm justified in calling that proof of an affair. It's not "irrevocable proof" though. "Irrevocable proof" would then be actually seeing him in the act. Logically, though, it's not - maybe I was hallucinating? Maybe he has a twin? Etc. - the point is, language is rarely definite in everyday use. I got tripped up on a few of these as well. I said that evolution is correct despite not being fully "proven", yet it was foolish to believe in God without irrevocable proof of his existence. My intent was to say that believing in a God would require a huge amount of proof, not that it could be "proven absolutely", whatever that means. The game decided that I was arguing that God needed to be literally proven in order to prefer the God theory. I don't even know what would constitute "irrevocable proof" in any area bar "I think therefore I am" - and I believe even that has been shown to not necessarily hold! -- Ayjay on Fedang/philosophy
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    I'm not so sure that "irrevocable proof" really makes that much sense. How do you prove something and then revoke it? Something like "irrefutable proof" would be better.
    - Deestan 16y ago
      Yes, that's what I meant to write. English is such a moving target.
  - Deestan 16y ago
    (btw I probably meant to write "irrefutable") A irrefutable proof in mathematics is no problem - no theoretical possibility of being incorrect exists. But, if the phrase "irrefutable proof" in "softer" context is to have any meaning at all, it can't mean the same as in maths, since there will always be a possibility of being incorrect. By using the phrase at all in eg. biology, it must therefore mean "the possibility of being incorrect is vanishingly small", otherwise we're just talking gibberish. Generally, different context give the same phrase different meanings, so taking literal logical paths through a series of different statements is silly and pointless and best left to philosophers. :)
- plorkyeran 16y ago
  The one part that annoyed me is when it asserted that an omnipotent god must be able to do things that don't make any sense, which is not what I thought the earlier question was asking. It doesn't do any good to point out an inconsistency that's caused by a poorly worded question.
- scotty79 16y ago
  No hits. My two bullets: ## 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. ## 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.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    I got bitten by that second one too. My reasoning was that rationality (or at least part of it) is likely to be a product of the universe in which you live. Assuming that God created it, they might be just as likely to create a different one where square circles might exist.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      The problem is, neither squares nor circles exist in our world. Talking about a world where square circles exist is meaningless. Squares and circles are mathematical concepts. They often are a model of parts of our world. Of course, the fact that we created these concepts is a product of our universe. But the concepts themselves are independent of any universe. Therefore, they are independent of the will of God (if she exist). The definitions of squares and circles alone are sufficient for us to tell that no square is a circle, and no circle is a square. That conclusion is likewise independent of our world and the will of God.
- cema 16y ago
  I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather than arguing back, we could contact them with suggestions. Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).
  - aaronblohowiak 16y ago
    uhmmmmmm, how would the Loch Ness monster be any less natural than God? ;)
    - adam-a 16y ago
      I got tripped up on this question too and I agree with the comment above. Loch Ness is a physical lake and Nessie, though perhaps a musical dinosaur, is allegedly tangible and physically there. It's not possible to get a submarine and go searching through God's lake because he probably doesn't live in one and if he did he may well decide to turn invisible just as you got close.
    - cema 16y ago
      Why, the other way, of course. But my point was, the authors have not considered all the (potentially) important aspects, and we may help them with this. Or just have fun.
ziadbc 16y ago
Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in something without external evidence, I did not say it was ok to act on those beliefs without external evidence. Huge massive difference here. Logical Fail Here: "Earlier you said that 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 this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any 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!"
- emef 16y ago
  I had the same problem with it, I don't know why it bothered me so much, but it was incredibly frustrating. I shouldn't let something silly like that throw me off, bud damn! Don't throw your red stop sign at me when it is _you_ that is wrong quiz!
- waterhouse 16y ago
  Same thing happened to me, and I thought exactly the same thing. But the FAQ says... "...But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!" Looking back at the question, it does in fact ask: "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." Still, they could have worded it much better, maybe even to the point where they wouldn't have to explain it in the FAQ.
- anthonyb 16y ago
sgift 16y ago
I have not taken any direct hits, but three bullets. Which means (slightly paraphrased): Your beliefs are consistent, but people may find them strange (sometimes). I'm still trying to analyze if this is a problem.
timcederman 16y ago
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. It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial teacup or invisible pink unicorns. That's quite different to physical evidence of evolution. The author of this test loves playing semantic games.
- secret 16y ago
  It really does seem like the questions are worded to create contradictions where there are none. Almost like the author is trying to trap people instead of being intellectually honest (or even a decent philosopher).
- andymorris 16y ago
  I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would STILL prefer evolution, as you would require certain, irrevocable proof for God. Your previous response said that you didn't need that level of proof for evolution, hence it states your views are logically inconsistent. I made the same "mistake", as I intended to imply that I would need "very strong" (but not "certain" proof) for the God theory. Basically, the question's are a bit ambiguous (especially with only True/False responses), but logically I think the site is correct. -- Ayjay on Fedang
  - timcederman 16y ago
    The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty of physical evidence for it. I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)
    - 16y ago
dkersten 16y ago
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. This is stupid. I said that god COULD change what is considered sinful and that god would WANT to minimize suffering. Being able to do something isn't a contradiction with wanting something else if they never do it. I'm ABLE to kick the cat, but I don't WANT to hurt it - my beliefs about the cat aren't a contradiction. I never said that such a god would change the definition of sin to make decreasing suffering a sin, just that they would be able to and wouldn't want to. Where is the contradiction?
- Locke1689 16y ago
  You're right, the explanation of the contradiction is poor. The true contradiction is that your definition of sin is arbitrary -- if God simply decides what is "sin" and that definition is in and of itself malleable, what makes an action "sinful?" Tomorrow I will see if I have my Socrates texts. I think he spoke about this in the Creeto (piety under the Gods).
  - dkersten 16y ago
    If god couldn't redefine sin, then god would not be all powerful, which, in my opinion, is a requirement of being considered "god".
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ThomPete 16y ago
There are so many problems with this test. For instance. It sets up evolutionary theory as a true false theory. But evolutionary theory is a model to explain phenomena. It's neither true nor false. (I say that as an atheist btw.) Edit: Instead of just down voting why don't you come forward with an argument?
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  You play with the words too much here. Any theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?
  - revolvingcur 16y ago
    What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions (models).
    - ThomPete 16y ago
      Exactly. The problem arises not when we say one model is more useful or accurate (for our purpose) than another, but when we start to say that something is true. As if narratives however abstract (math for instance instead of words) are describing reality. They are not.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      EDIT: I actually agree with you. Maybe I shouldn't have made an exception of physics in the first place. That's because fundamental physics seeks to be the ultimate explanation for everything. (A bit like 42 :-) As far as I know, every other theories about our world are meant to be tractable models, instead of the real thing. Evolution theory is an example. Fluid mechanics is another. We could try to explain them in terms of string theory, but that would hardly help us in finding new fossils, or build a safe plane.
cwp 16y ago
I escaped unscathed, but I will say this: I was squirming as I answered a lot of the questions. Having denied the existence of God, how am I to have an opinion the nature of divinity? But it made me realize that I'm actually more sympathetic to the notion of God than I had thought. Apparently, a preponderance of evidence suggesting the existence of a very wise and powerful being would be enough to make me a believer. That's a much lower bar than I would have expected.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Is that not the most logical answer? I am an atheist (and philosopher) only because there is no direct evidence for the existence of God. If extraordinary evidence would present itself to the contrary (e.g., lightning striking Mount Rushmore to write out, "I AM THE LORD, YOUR GOD") I'd have some serious praying to do.
Tichy 16y ago
Hm, it does not even use the same logic I do. I don't believe anything. There are just likelihoods (or proofs). So how am I supposed to answer "is it rational to believe that Nessie does not exist if there has never been any evidence for it"? I don't think it is likely that Nessie exists, but I can not prove the opposite either. So I can not claim to believe that Nessie does not exist.
- ugh 16y ago
  Sure, there are only liklihoods, I can never be absolutly sure of, well, anything, really. Defining 'truth' as something I am absolutly certain of wouldn't make much sense. But why should I define 'truth' that way? I have no problem calling something 'true' which merely has a high enough liklihood. It's a useful approximation, it basically dichotomizes a scale which is quite often pretty useful. I also don't have many semantic worries. We seem to be well aware of the double character of 'truth' and usually say something like 'absolute truth' when we refer to statements of which someone is absolutly certain.
ckuehne 16y ago
Question 12 asks: "If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.". Which I deem to be true. I earlier responded "God does not exists". So there really is not contradiction as claimed by the game "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." since I deem the premise of question 12 false (God does not exist). Again "If God exists than she can do such and such ..." is always true if God does not exist. Furthermore I also think there might be a semantical problem in the analysis. The game did not establish that sin implies suffering.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
I got a direct hit because of a contradiction between question 5 (I answered true) and question 16 (I answered false). Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something, that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood the meaning of "create". Squares and circles are not physical things. They are mathematical concepts. We don't create them, we imagine them. Likewise, the fact that 1+1=2 (and not 72) is only based on mathematical concepts. Actually 1+1=2 is not even a fact, that's a tautology. It says nothing about our world[1]. Of course, an omnipotent God could totally make us believe that 1+1=72, or that square circles actually exist in our world. But that wouldn't make it true. That just would make us irrational. [1]: the concept itself says nothing, but of course, the fact that we thought the concept says a lot about us and our universe.
- latentflip 16y ago
  I had exactly the same hit, and thought the same as you. Perhaps I am naïve, but short of manipulating my neurons directly there is no way a god could reconfigure the universe around me such that 1+1=72. And if a god were to manipulate my neurons directly, it would say nothing about the truthfulness of the statement.
- ugh 16y ago
  I don't think you really believe that god can do anything. Wouldn't a god that can do anything truly be able to do anything, even logically inconsistent things? You to me seem to believe that god can do a great many things but not anything. Your answer to 5 doesn't seem to be your actual belief.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    First, I don't believe in God, so this isn't a matter of belief but a matter of definition. Second, I have no problem with God creating a world where the principle of contradiction doesn't hold. What I have a problem with, is God modifying a realm that depend only on a set of fixed definitions. This is not impossible, this is unthinkable. Also, we have complete control over such realms. These are just concepts. There is no notion of "can" or "can't" there. Mathematical realms are just self consistent. By definition. So, talking about what God "can" or "can't" do in these realms is meaningless.
harrys 16y ago
this is very logical. Well built and programed. But humans are not logical. You ask questions for the reason to contradict. The fact the Sutcliffe raped people based on that God told him to...Uhm I dont think so. Ask your self this, if this "God" told him to do so; then who is this God? If you read in the bible it sais who God is. And that is not who God is, love does not harm any one. God did not tell him this, unfortunately he was fooled. Making the Q's not valid IMO
- harrys 16y ago
  A proof only becomes a proof after the social act of “accepting it as a proof”.
thingsinjars 16y ago
The line of questioning struck me as odd, roughly paraphrased as: "Does god exist?" "No" "Erm, well, _if_ god existed, what would the nature of god be?" Isn't that following an irrelevant line of enquiry?
Locke1689 16y ago
No hits, but only because I'm familiar with the questions being posed. For example, the statement about God being able to do anything was clearly an allusion to the Philosopher's God (i.e., most agree that the Philosopher's God can perform any action which is logically possible). Similarly, the question about "God exists. True/False" is clearly designed to get someone to make a straight statement about the existence of God, which the only logical answer is "unknown." The question about moral justification in absence of a God is tricky, mainly because of the wording. The wording implies that there can be no moral system outside of a theological system. Technically, it's not that there is no moral system, but only that all moral systems are essentially equivalent in fundamental foundation. This is ideally trying to trap one in the same well that Kant fell into.
torial 16y ago
Just worth highlighting this (as a lot of discussion seems to be on the bullets and contradictions): Rules of the game The aim of the game is to get across the intellectual battleground unscathed. There are two types of injury you can suffer. A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats. First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief. Such possibilities are unavoidable given the constraints on the game. We merely ask that you do not take it personally if you suffer a direct hit and don't get too frustrated if the choices we offer you sometimes seem to force you into a choice you'd rather not make. You have to bite a bullet if your choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. There is more room for disagreement here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike others as normal. So, again, please do not get too upset if we judge you have bitten a bullet. Maybe it is our world-view which is warped!
Mathnerd314 16y ago
Definitely helped me to refine my beliefs a bit; finally got by unscathed: TFFFFTFFTTFFFFFFF

28 points by anthonyb 16y ago

A useful and somewhat though-provoking test. But, it feels really frustrating not being able to argue back; especially when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable", etc) that I disagree with. :-)

sliverstorm 16y ago
You don't have to get very technical to use the meaning of "irrevocable proof". Interpreting the definition to mean 'proof that cannot be refuted' is pretty straightforward, and not a technicality at all.
- andymorris 16y ago
  What about the everyday meaning of "proof" and "irrevocable proof" as "strong evidence" and "stronger evidence" respectively? If I saw someone leaving the house of a woman (not his wife) with lipstick on his face and messed up clothes, I think I'm justified in calling that proof of an affair. It's not "irrevocable proof" though. "Irrevocable proof" would then be actually seeing him in the act. Logically, though, it's not - maybe I was hallucinating? Maybe he has a twin? Etc. - the point is, language is rarely definite in everyday use. I got tripped up on a few of these as well. I said that evolution is correct despite not being fully "proven", yet it was foolish to believe in God without irrevocable proof of his existence. My intent was to say that believing in a God would require a huge amount of proof, not that it could be "proven absolutely", whatever that means. The game decided that I was arguing that God needed to be literally proven in order to prefer the God theory. I don't even know what would constitute "irrevocable proof" in any area bar "I think therefore I am" - and I believe even that has been shown to not necessarily hold! -- Ayjay on Fedang/philosophy
- anthonyb 16y ago
  I'm not so sure that "irrevocable proof" really makes that much sense. How do you prove something and then revoke it? Something like "irrefutable proof" would be better.
  - Deestan 16y ago
    Yes, that's what I meant to write. English is such a moving target.
- Deestan 16y ago
  (btw I probably meant to write "irrefutable") A irrefutable proof in mathematics is no problem - no theoretical possibility of being incorrect exists. But, if the phrase "irrefutable proof" in "softer" context is to have any meaning at all, it can't mean the same as in maths, since there will always be a possibility of being incorrect. By using the phrase at all in eg. biology, it must therefore mean "the possibility of being incorrect is vanishingly small", otherwise we're just talking gibberish. Generally, different context give the same phrase different meanings, so taking literal logical paths through a series of different statements is silly and pointless and best left to philosophers. :)
plorkyeran 16y ago
The one part that annoyed me is when it asserted that an omnipotent god must be able to do things that don't make any sense, which is not what I thought the earlier question was asking. It doesn't do any good to point out an inconsistency that's caused by a poorly worded question.
scotty79 16y ago
No hits. My two bullets: ## 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. ## 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.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  I got bitten by that second one too. My reasoning was that rationality (or at least part of it) is likely to be a product of the universe in which you live. Assuming that God created it, they might be just as likely to create a different one where square circles might exist.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    The problem is, neither squares nor circles exist in our world. Talking about a world where square circles exist is meaningless. Squares and circles are mathematical concepts. They often are a model of parts of our world. Of course, the fact that we created these concepts is a product of our universe. But the concepts themselves are independent of any universe. Therefore, they are independent of the will of God (if she exist). The definitions of squares and circles alone are sufficient for us to tell that no square is a circle, and no circle is a square. That conclusion is likewise independent of our world and the will of God.
cema 16y ago
I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather than arguing back, we could contact them with suggestions. Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).
- aaronblohowiak 16y ago
  uhmmmmmm, how would the Loch Ness monster be any less natural than God? ;)
  - adam-a 16y ago
    I got tripped up on this question too and I agree with the comment above. Loch Ness is a physical lake and Nessie, though perhaps a musical dinosaur, is allegedly tangible and physically there. It's not possible to get a submarine and go searching through God's lake because he probably doesn't live in one and if he did he may well decide to turn invisible just as you got close.
  - cema 16y ago
    Why, the other way, of course. But my point was, the authors have not considered all the (potentially) important aspects, and we may help them with this. Or just have fun.

ziadbc 16y ago

Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in something without external evidence, I did not say it was ok to act on those beliefs without external evidence. Huge massive difference here. Logical Fail Here: "Earlier you said that 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 this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any 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!"

emef 16y ago
I had the same problem with it, I don't know why it bothered me so much, but it was incredibly frustrating. I shouldn't let something silly like that throw me off, bud damn! Don't throw your red stop sign at me when it is _you_ that is wrong quiz!
waterhouse 16y ago
Same thing happened to me, and I thought exactly the same thing. But the FAQ says... "...But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!" Looking back at the question, it does in fact ask: "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." Still, they could have worded it much better, maybe even to the point where they wouldn't have to explain it in the FAQ.
anthonyb 16y ago

sgift 16y ago

I have not taken any direct hits, but three bullets. Which means (slightly paraphrased): Your beliefs are consistent, but people may find them strange (sometimes). I'm still trying to analyze if this is a problem.

timcederman 16y ago

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. It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial teacup or invisible pink unicorns. That's quite different to physical evidence of evolution. The author of this test loves playing semantic games.

secret 16y ago
It really does seem like the questions are worded to create contradictions where there are none. Almost like the author is trying to trap people instead of being intellectually honest (or even a decent philosopher).
andymorris 16y ago
I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would STILL prefer evolution, as you would require certain, irrevocable proof for God. Your previous response said that you didn't need that level of proof for evolution, hence it states your views are logically inconsistent. I made the same "mistake", as I intended to imply that I would need "very strong" (but not "certain" proof) for the God theory. Basically, the question's are a bit ambiguous (especially with only True/False responses), but logically I think the site is correct. -- Ayjay on Fedang
- timcederman 16y ago
  The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty of physical evidence for it. I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)
  - 16y ago

dkersten 16y ago

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. This is stupid. I said that god COULD change what is considered sinful and that god would WANT to minimize suffering. Being able to do something isn't a contradiction with wanting something else if they never do it. I'm ABLE to kick the cat, but I don't WANT to hurt it - my beliefs about the cat aren't a contradiction. I never said that such a god would change the definition of sin to make decreasing suffering a sin, just that they would be able to and wouldn't want to. Where is the contradiction?

Locke1689 16y ago
You're right, the explanation of the contradiction is poor. The true contradiction is that your definition of sin is arbitrary -- if God simply decides what is "sin" and that definition is in and of itself malleable, what makes an action "sinful?" Tomorrow I will see if I have my Socrates texts. I think he spoke about this in the Creeto (piety under the Gods).
- dkersten 16y ago
  If god couldn't redefine sin, then god would not be all powerful, which, in my opinion, is a requirement of being considered "god".

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

ThomPete 16y ago

There are so many problems with this test. For instance. It sets up evolutionary theory as a true false theory. But evolutionary theory is a model to explain phenomena. It's neither true nor false. (I say that as an atheist btw.) Edit: Instead of just down voting why don't you come forward with an argument?

loup-vaillant 16y ago
You play with the words too much here. Any theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?
- revolvingcur 16y ago
  What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions (models).
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    Exactly. The problem arises not when we say one model is more useful or accurate (for our purpose) than another, but when we start to say that something is true. As if narratives however abstract (math for instance instead of words) are describing reality. They are not.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    EDIT: I actually agree with you. Maybe I shouldn't have made an exception of physics in the first place. That's because fundamental physics seeks to be the ultimate explanation for everything. (A bit like 42 :-) As far as I know, every other theories about our world are meant to be tractable models, instead of the real thing. Evolution theory is an example. Fluid mechanics is another. We could try to explain them in terms of string theory, but that would hardly help us in finding new fossils, or build a safe plane.

cwp 16y ago

I escaped unscathed, but I will say this: I was squirming as I answered a lot of the questions. Having denied the existence of God, how am I to have an opinion the nature of divinity? But it made me realize that I'm actually more sympathetic to the notion of God than I had thought. Apparently, a preponderance of evidence suggesting the existence of a very wise and powerful being would be enough to make me a believer. That's a much lower bar than I would have expected.

Locke1689 16y ago
Is that not the most logical answer? I am an atheist (and philosopher) only because there is no direct evidence for the existence of God. If extraordinary evidence would present itself to the contrary (e.g., lightning striking Mount Rushmore to write out, "I AM THE LORD, YOUR GOD") I'd have some serious praying to do.

Tichy 16y ago

Hm, it does not even use the same logic I do. I don't believe anything. There are just likelihoods (or proofs). So how am I supposed to answer "is it rational to believe that Nessie does not exist if there has never been any evidence for it"? I don't think it is likely that Nessie exists, but I can not prove the opposite either. So I can not claim to believe that Nessie does not exist.

ugh 16y ago
Sure, there are only liklihoods, I can never be absolutly sure of, well, anything, really. Defining 'truth' as something I am absolutly certain of wouldn't make much sense. But why should I define 'truth' that way? I have no problem calling something 'true' which merely has a high enough liklihood. It's a useful approximation, it basically dichotomizes a scale which is quite often pretty useful. I also don't have many semantic worries. We seem to be well aware of the double character of 'truth' and usually say something like 'absolute truth' when we refer to statements of which someone is absolutly certain.

ckuehne 16y ago

Question 12 asks: "If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.". Which I deem to be true. I earlier responded "God does not exists". So there really is not contradiction as claimed by the game "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." since I deem the premise of question 12 false (God does not exist). Again "If God exists than she can do such and such ..." is always true if God does not exist. Furthermore I also think there might be a semantical problem in the analysis. The game did not establish that sin implies suffering.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

I got a direct hit because of a contradiction between question 5 (I answered true) and question 16 (I answered false). Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something, that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood the meaning of "create". Squares and circles are not physical things. They are mathematical concepts. We don't create them, we imagine them. Likewise, the fact that 1+1=2 (and not 72) is only based on mathematical concepts. Actually 1+1=2 is not even a fact, that's a tautology. It says nothing about our world[1]. Of course, an omnipotent God could totally make us believe that 1+1=72, or that square circles actually exist in our world. But that wouldn't make it true. That just would make us irrational. [1]: the concept itself says nothing, but of course, the fact that we thought the concept says a lot about us and our universe.

latentflip 16y ago
I had exactly the same hit, and thought the same as you. Perhaps I am naïve, but short of manipulating my neurons directly there is no way a god could reconfigure the universe around me such that 1+1=72. And if a god were to manipulate my neurons directly, it would say nothing about the truthfulness of the statement.
ugh 16y ago
I don't think you really believe that god can do anything. Wouldn't a god that can do anything truly be able to do anything, even logically inconsistent things? You to me seem to believe that god can do a great many things but not anything. Your answer to 5 doesn't seem to be your actual belief.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  First, I don't believe in God, so this isn't a matter of belief but a matter of definition. Second, I have no problem with God creating a world where the principle of contradiction doesn't hold. What I have a problem with, is God modifying a realm that depend only on a set of fixed definitions. This is not impossible, this is unthinkable. Also, we have complete control over such realms. These are just concepts. There is no notion of "can" or "can't" there. Mathematical realms are just self consistent. By definition. So, talking about what God "can" or "can't" do in these realms is meaningless.

harrys 16y ago

this is very logical. Well built and programed. But humans are not logical. You ask questions for the reason to contradict. The fact the Sutcliffe raped people based on that God told him to...Uhm I dont think so. Ask your self this, if this "God" told him to do so; then who is this God? If you read in the bible it sais who God is. And that is not who God is, love does not harm any one. God did not tell him this, unfortunately he was fooled. Making the Q's not valid IMO

harrys 16y ago
A proof only becomes a proof after the social act of “accepting it as a proof”.

thingsinjars 16y ago

The line of questioning struck me as odd, roughly paraphrased as: "Does god exist?" "No" "Erm, well, _if_ god existed, what would the nature of god be?" Isn't that following an irrelevant line of enquiry?

Locke1689 16y ago

No hits, but only because I'm familiar with the questions being posed. For example, the statement about God being able to do anything was clearly an allusion to the Philosopher's God (i.e., most agree that the Philosopher's God can perform any action which is logically possible). Similarly, the question about "God exists. True/False" is clearly designed to get someone to make a straight statement about the existence of God, which the only logical answer is "unknown." The question about moral justification in absence of a God is tricky, mainly because of the wording. The wording implies that there can be no moral system outside of a theological system. Technically, it's not that there is no moral system, but only that all moral systems are essentially equivalent in fundamental foundation. This is ideally trying to trap one in the same well that Kant fell into.

torial 16y ago

Just worth highlighting this (as a lot of discussion seems to be on the bullets and contradictions): Rules of the game The aim of the game is to get across the intellectual battleground unscathed. There are two types of injury you can suffer. A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats. First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief. Such possibilities are unavoidable given the constraints on the game. We merely ask that you do not take it personally if you suffer a direct hit and don't get too frustrated if the choices we offer you sometimes seem to force you into a choice you'd rather not make. You have to bite a bullet if your choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. There is more room for disagreement here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike others as normal. So, again, please do not get too upset if we judge you have bitten a bullet. Maybe it is our world-view which is warped!

Mathnerd314 16y ago

Definitely helped me to refine my beliefs a bit; finally got by unscathed: TFFFFTFFTTFFFFFFF