4 ms·

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 co

by 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.

by Deestan 16y ago

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.