[Jason Vines]

Do you think your opinions on God are rational and consistent? See whether that's true when you test them on Battleground God.

I took no direct hits and bit two bullets, earning me the Medal of Distinction.

Quote

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

[Sim]

Quote

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 332168 people have so far undertaken this activity.

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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

[Cymro]

I dislike this "bite the bullet" thingy, as it requires that you loose points for thinking logically just because you don't stay in line with mainstream views, which are incredibly illogical.

[Bondo]

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!

[Sam Cogley]

I took one hit, and bit one bullet, but what tripped me up was the "God, if he exists, can do anything" bit. I took that to mean anything within the realm of possibility. A circle cannot logically be a square, so "able to do anything" would not encompass such an activity.

[Jason Vines]

Sam Cogley, on Mar 5 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

I took one hit, and bit one bullet, but what tripped me up was the "God, if he exists, can do anything" bit. I took that to mean anything within the realm of possibility. A circle cannot logically be a square, so "able to do anything" would not encompass such an activity.

God, being omnipotent, cannot by definition have limitations, though. That means not even logic can limit God. Nothing can. That, of course, means God cannot exist, for to exist is to be something as opposed to something else, thereby having limitations.

This is one of the many reasons why God is an absurd concept.

[Sam Cogley]

I guess I sorta see God as a Q-like figure, were he to exist...

[BAZ]

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 progressed through this activity without suffering any direct hits indicates that your beliefs about God are very consistent.


However, you have bitten a number of bullets, which suggests that some of your beliefs will be considered strange, incredible or unpalatable by many people. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of the bitten bullets.


Despite the bullets that you bit, the fact that you did not suffer any hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

[I am Da Man]

Medal of Distinction. I think that SG's view pretty much sums up my own.

1 Direct, 2 Bites.

Of course, if you could write what you believed, then it would be more accurate... and exponentially harder to code

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

The "bite the bullet" aspect is a bit weird, but to be expected.

"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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out."

My "bullet" involved questions 7 and 15.

"You are consistent in applying the principle 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 this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible."

The thing thats funny though is that the write up turns around and says that "This is something many religious people are willing to accept." But if "many" religious people accept this, then how exactly did I have to bite a bullet. Simply because its the less attractive option? Though I guess thats a caveat of their definitions.

This post has been edited by Merlinus Ambrosius: 27 July 2007 - 07:33 PM

[Rorschach]

"The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request."

"Act of god"?

[Jason Vines]

Cymro, on 21 August 2006 - 09:43 PM, said:

I dislike this "bite the bullet" thingy, as it requires that you loose points for thinking logically just because you don't stay in line with mainstream views, which are incredibly illogical.

After having just gone through the test again, I agree.

Here are the two bullets I bit, which I believe are the same as when I took the test a few years ago:

Quote

Bitten Bullet 1You 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 nocertain 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 isrequired for belief in God than for belief in evolution. ( 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.

Regarding the first bullet, since God is a much more fantastical concept than evolution, I'd maintain a higher standard of proof would be necessary for rational acceptance of God's existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary must be the evidence. In any case, the wording of the questions is somewhat wacky. Question 6 is, "Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true." Question 13 is, "It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists." The questions specify differing levels of confidence: Belief in God implies the absolute faith of many religious devotees, for which "certain, irrevocable proof" would indeed be logically necessary. The question about evolution, in contrast, seeks no such absolutism.

As for the second bullet, I don't believe "any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality." Whereas of course our puny brains do not constrain reality in any way, our interpretation of reality must fall within the constraints of reason, which is our toolbox for distinguishing truth from falsity, sense from nonsense. Reason is the only means by which we can learn about reality at all, rather than fill our minds with gibberish. So we must discuss God, as we would anything else, using the tools of reason. In so doing, we find the God concept is irrational, as I conveyed on the test -- which is not justification for saying, "Oh, well, God escapes rationality" in a desperate attempt to cling to religion no matter what, but for concluding, "God does not exist."