Battlefield God
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: My answer was false not because God could not have done so originally, but because to alter this now would have forced God to change God's mind about the laws of physics and since God did not make an error, God would not choose to do so now. Why does a change of mind (from your point of view) imply an error? Maybe it was all part of the Master Plan!
yaname wrote: Why does a change of mind (from your point of view) imply an error? Maybe it was all part of the Master Plan! In the case you present yes it would happen. Just my reasoning that was not a factor on the evaulation of the questions consistency with my other answers. ""
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
I have to agree with you, as a couple of the questions were couched in phrases that were ambiguous in meaning, but interpreted with a deliberate bias. On the whole, though, it is a thought provoking test, and I have no complaints about the illogical questions that I got hit by due to the scoring mechanism's penchant for changing the phrasing of the answer to mean something different from what the question asked. Such things are matters of opinion, it seems...:-D "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom
-
JoeSox wrote: You have said that you don't know whether God exists and also that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. My personal take on the morality question. If God does not exist there is not a fixed basis for morality. I.E. Morality is then a general will of the people and that morality may change over time. With God it is fixed and does not change. However: JoeSox wrote: But now you say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong. I believe the Inquisition used torture a fair amount. So even with God's basis man has done what he feels like all too often. :rose: ""
My responses were different - I believe that morality exists outside of the existence of God, but it still considered my response to be illogical. The game is rigged, or the authors practice some variety of logic that would baffle Euclid, Boole, Aristotle, and Plato collectively. "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom
-
David Stone wrote: so if you're an atheist, you'll do just fine nope. i'm livin non-believing proof that that statement is false. :) i got nailed on the definition of "anything": "a god can do anything": true. but i don't think a god could change the truth of "1+1=72". the "god" that i hypothesized about in the first question existed in the same universe as everything else, and as such cannot change a basic fact of that universe. i suppose i put the laws of math/logic out of reach of any god. oh well. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
I stand corrected. :)
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
-
(at least for me): Morality Play[^] OK, OK, I accept that my strong distinction between "acting knowingly" and "not preventing" is sub-average....
Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen -
"Your Moral Parsimony Score is 67%" Cool, 1 point above average... ...and people call me a heartless bastard. :rolleyes: Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
Mike Mullikin wrote: Your Moral Parsimony Score is 67% mine too :) :beer: -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
My responses were different - I believe that morality exists outside of the existence of God, but it still considered my response to be illogical. The game is rigged, or the authors practice some variety of logic that would baffle Euclid, Boole, Aristotle, and Plato collectively. "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom
Roger Wright wrote: I believe that morality exists outside of the existence of God, but it still considered my response to be illogical. I also said it existed outside of God. Just clarified to what extent in my comment. Roger Wright wrote: The game is rigged, Agreed. ""
-
JoeSox wrote: You have said that you don't know whether God exists and also that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. My personal take on the morality question. If God does not exist there is not a fixed basis for morality. I.E. Morality is then a general will of the people and that morality may change over time. With God it is fixed and does not change. However: JoeSox wrote: But now you say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong. I believe the Inquisition used torture a fair amount. So even with God's basis man has done what he feels like all too often. :rose: ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I.E. Morality is then a general will of the people and that morality may change over time. With God it is fixed and does not change. That makes sense to me, I think I can agree with that, but I don't know if there is a God or not:D Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I believe the Inquisition used torture a fair amount. So even with God's basis man has done what he feels like all too often. This is true Later,
JoeSox
www.joeswammi.com "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men." General George S. Patton, Jr -
David Stone wrote: so if you're an atheist, you'll do just fine nope. i'm livin non-believing proof that that statement is false. :) i got nailed on the definition of "anything": "a god can do anything": true. but i don't think a god could change the truth of "1+1=72". the "god" that i hypothesized about in the first question existed in the same universe as everything else, and as such cannot change a basic fact of that universe. i suppose i put the laws of math/logic out of reach of any god. oh well. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Jason Henderson wrote: So he can't do "anything". Here I won't give you a five but I will give you a... :jig: :D God works in mysterious ways:P Later,
JoeSox
www.joeswammi.com "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men." General George S. Patton, Jr -
JoeSox wrote: You have said that you don't know whether God exists and also that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. My personal take on the morality question. If God does not exist there is not a fixed basis for morality. I.E. Morality is then a general will of the people and that morality may change over time. With God it is fixed and does not change. However: JoeSox wrote: But now you say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong. I believe the Inquisition used torture a fair amount. So even with God's basis man has done what he feels like all too often. :rose: ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: My personal take on the morality question. If God does not exist there is not a fixed basis for morality. I.E. Morality is then a general will of the people and that morality may change over time. Except to the extent that human biology pre-disposes human beings to come up with a particular morality --- a very strong effect in my opinion (e.g., almost all societies are against murder). Michael A. Barnhart wrote: With God it is fixed and does not change. You consider Old Testament and New Testament morality to be identical? John Carson
-
2 bullets in my face :) I took one I don't understand in their conclusion: "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." Why? My faith is beyond any debate or rational discussion because it is a faith. The concept of faith by itself is opposite to a rational discussion, where the concept would rather be "I know or I don't, but I don't believe". I could speak about it with others (generally I don't), but it won't change my position. My faith is related to feelings, not logical deductions. It is possible to demonstrate someone is in love or not? "You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction" :cool:
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
I got caught with this one too. To me if I say God would be all powerful, then He would be able to change the definition of a circle to be square, I mean we can do that! To me I was being perfectly consistant. Baaahhh!! KaЯl wrote: This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible We manage to prove that quite frequently here. :) BW "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
(at least for me): Morality Play[^] OK, OK, I accept that my strong distinction between "acting knowingly" and "not preventing" is sub-average....
Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygenYour Moral Parsimony Score is 84% Excerpts Geographical Distance Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category. The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking. Family Relatedness Your score of 51% is a bit lower than the average score of 57% in this category. It seems then that family relatedness is sometimes a relevant factor in your moral thinking. Probably, you think that you have a slightly greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. If that's the case, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework Acts and Omissions Your score of 83% is much higher than the average score of 59% in this category. It seems that you do not think that the distinction between acting and omitting to act has any real moral significance. John Carson
-
(at least for me): Morality Play[^] OK, OK, I accept that my strong distinction between "acting knowingly" and "not preventing" is sub-average....
Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen88%, but I have to admit I answered according to what was obvious to keep logically consistant, more than what I felt I would probably do. BW "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
Some of the questions were worded in such a way for you to have no out...it's pretty anti-religion, so if you're an atheist, you'll do just fine. However, if you're religious, it's kinda unbalanced. In my opinion at least.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
Not at all. I'm an agnostic (don't know/care whether there is a god), and I got nailed on whether god can make 1 + 1 = 72 blah blah. I answered yes. This was consistent with what I had answered earlier, that god, if it existed, can do anything. By answering yes to this question, I agreed that god is outside rational thinking, which means I don't need conclusive and non disputable proof for god to exist. This was in contradiction with what I had said earlier, that until I get absolute proof that something exists, I am not going to believe it. Or something like that. I forget the exact words they used in their convoluted excuse of a logic.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
But if god did exist, he should be omnipotent, he should be able to do anything, even change what is evil and what is good, what is a lie and what is the truth. But then I don't think that what is moral and what is not depends on whether or not there is a god. Belief in god just gives us one more reason to be moral IMO. But things look OK if you accept the premise that god is beyond our perception of logic and rationality. If he does exist, he may have his own logic, something which we are just not capable to understand. But does it matter? ;P
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
I have to agree with you, as a couple of the questions were couched in phrases that were ambiguous in meaning, but interpreted with a deliberate bias. On the whole, though, it is a thought provoking test, and I have no complaints about the illogical questions that I got hit by due to the scoring mechanism's penchant for changing the phrasing of the answer to mean something different from what the question asked. Such things are matters of opinion, it seems...:-D "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom
Roger Wright wrote: a couple of the questions were couched in phrases that were ambiguous in meaning, but interpreted with a deliberate bias. I have to agree. Besides, some of the questions were such that you will have to either bite a bullet or take a hit, no matter what you answer. One way or the other you are going to be inconsistent with what you answered previously.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
That was much more interesting. I answered them on my belief that love for an individual allows you infinite understanding, forgiveness, and moral exclusions, compared to those of a stranger. (Bare in mind I have no allusions of a higher being or greater purpose, but see things as a constant struggle with the priorities that affect and better your own life). As to the rest, I only view someone as responsible for the actions that have been made as a result of a conscious descision or deliberate negligence. I did not like question four however - it forced me to answer yes to 'either or' which I did not want to do. :( Final scrore: 59%. The interesting parts of the blurb I have repeated below: General The higher your percentage score the more parsimonious your moral framework. In other words, a high score is suggestive of a moral framework that comprises a minimal number of moral principles that apply across a range of circumstances and acts. What is a high score? As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework. However, perhaps a better way to think about this is to see how your score compares to other people's scores. In fact, your score of 59% is slightly lower than the average score of 66%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant. Family Relatedness In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement. Your score of 2% is a lot lower than the average score of 57% in this category. It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced. (My addition: I would not limit the above
-
(at least for me): Morality Play[^] OK, OK, I accept that my strong distinction between "acting knowingly" and "not preventing" is sub-average....
Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen"A situation arises where you can either save your own child from death or contact the emergency services in order to save the lives of ten other children. You cannot do both, and there is no way to save everyone. Which course of action are you morally obliged to follow?" AAAAAAAAARGH! That was the worst for me! I consider "morality" to be a condition that should not be confused by geography, or biological links. The original quiz said you should answer according to what you thought was morally right, rather than what I would do, so I did, and that was reflected in my overall score (84%). I guess that makes me blatantly immoral, in reality, and I don't care :-D Debbie
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler