Battleground God

talk about loaded questions!! i took one hit.

but it was based on the old argument of, "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" that's playing semantics. it's nonsensical. and ultimately, has nothing to do with real faith.

interesting website, though...thanks for posting it.

 

Geez, that's hard! I made it through unscathed, but a little wiser!

 

Took two hits and bit one bullet. But on one of the hits I think I misunderstood the question.

Thanks for posting...it was thought provoking!!

 

There is a logical flaw in those arguements in that it limits God to physics, space, time, mass, etc as WE as humans understand it.

 

Annoying and interesting at the same time. As the guy mentioned in the FAQ, there is only so much you can do with an online survey, but still the Q&A is too constrained. I think his results will skew to a higher level of inconsistency in beliefs than is actually the case. I took two hits but I don't think either was justified. One was comparing the Loch Ness monster with the absence of God. He wrote extensively in the FAQ about it, but he just can't seal up all the holes in his logic. The second was justifying rape and murder based on inner convictions. In both cases, I think he was too loose with his language and created gaps in the comparisons into which I happened to fall. I also didn't like the omnipotence questions in which a true/false dichotomy is a bit nonsensical in my view.

 

Question 2

If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality.


This assumes that the only basis for morality can be God

which I think is wrong

morality can come from within, not just from external sources (God)

 

Yeah, the test is certainly flawed and attempts to put limits on, and describe, the undescribable. But, for a fun way to pass the time, the test is pretty interesting.

 

I took the test again using my alternate Christian persona (yes, I have two personas with very different religious convictions) and it gave my something like 4 hits. Again, unjustified after reading the explanation. He apparently sees "proof" and "strong, internal conviction" as completely separate things. My Christian persona sees no real difference.

 

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
******************
I think this means that I am intellectually honest about my ignorance.

 

I took 2 hits, but I ascribe it to there being some contradictions inherent in faith anyway. For example, we are very visual creatures, and yet so many of us believe very strongly in something we cannot see or touch with our physical selves. It was a fun way to fill the last ten minutes before 5.

 

Meowgi why are you always causing trouble? Is this some sort of sneaky scientology test to recruit new members to their John Travolta/ Tom Cruise cult?

 

Exactly true.

Also, there is another logical flaw 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!"

I had responded "false" to this: "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."

The flaw is that I think a belief is justifiable, but the answer implies that taking action based on the belief is justifiable.

 

I thought I'd get my ass kicked because of my Catholic upbringing, but I only had two hits and bit one bullet. So I feel pretty good that my beliefs are not too contradictory. Besides, I've learned more about God from my kids than I ever did from any priest. The Zen adage of "beginner's mind" is so true, especially when it shows itself in the mind of a child.

 

The most significant flaw I saw was in the Loch Ness monster argument. There is a big difference between searching a lake in Scotland for a prehistoric animal and searching the universe for God.

I appreciate logic in most situations but God, IMO, is so completely beyond rational and logical comprehension, using logic to decipher concepts like God and eternity is really just an exercise in futility.

 

I think you're right. But I would also add that if he has revealed some things about himself in a way that we can comprehend, then we don't have to be completely in the dark (so to speak).

 

I mean in all seriousness, we can not grasp the true concept of infinity, which means we are totally incapable of grasping the complete nature of God. And to me, that's the beauty of it. You learn something about Him everyday, really. It's like a big jigsaw puzzle with a billion tiny pieces. Until you die, you will never fill the whole or even a small part of it in.

 

I took this test months ago and got whatever the highest score is. The medal of honor or whatever. It's about testing the consistency of your belief system. The reason (I think) I scored well is that though I consider myself an atheist, the only thing I'm more sure of than the absence of a god is that I couldn't possibly know anything for sure.