Battleground God

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Have a go at this game and tell me how you go
When I did this a month or so ago I got through without having to bite a bullet or take a hit

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php
Just click the writing in blue that says "If you're ready to start, click here".

Good luck

 

[BornReady]

I was awarded the TPM Medal of Honour.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Good work

 

[Accountable]

It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists.

Sets up a false choice, since there is external evidence that God exists. I forget the official term for such false logic.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Lol well, it does say "IF".

 

[Accountable]

Here's a bullet I bit:

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.

In believing that God created reality, God can change it. In believing that God created reality, (S)He likewise created rationality, and can therefore change it.

To say God can do something is not to say that God will, must, or does do it. To believe God created reality is to believe in the logically impossible, just as to believe that something (the universe) suddenly emanated from nothing (big bang) is irrational. Question anything back far enough and you are bound to have to, um, bend rationality.

 

[Accountable]

In logical argument, is "faith" the antonym of "logic"?

 

[edgray]

Sets up a false choice, since there is external evidence that God exists. I forget the official term for such false logic.

there really isn't any external evidence tho, is there? Not one single shred in secular history about Jesus, the contents of the Bible or the huge meal of breaded fish that Jesus fondly served to thousands.

It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists.

What's more to the point is that it is NOT justifiable to believe in God because of some "inner feeling" anymore than it is to believe in Fairies, Santa Claus or ghosts.

 

[dkwrtw]

lol I bit two bullets and took one direct hit but I made it to the end

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Here's a bullet I bit:

In believing that God created reality, God can change it. In believing that God created reality, (S)He likewise created rationality, and can therefore change it.

To say God can do something is not to say that God will, must, or does do it. To believe God created reality is to believe in the logically impossible, just as to believe that something (the universe) suddenly emanated from nothing (big bang) is irrational. Question anything back far enough and you are bound to have to, um, bend rationality.

That is so confusing what the quiz quote said :willy_nilly:

I think I might get it though...if God can defy logic and the impossible, then trying to prove his existence isn't constrained by rationality.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

lol I bit two bullets and took one direct hit but I made it to the end

Not bad! I tried doing it heaps today. It's very hard to replicate my perfect score again lol! My head must've been in a different mind set back then.

 

[dkwrtw]

I gotta say I'm loving the games on that site, I think I might register on the forum.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I gotta say I'm loving the games on that site, I think I might register on the forum.

Haha yeah I tried another game on there this afternoon, it was about saving people and a train and an evil saboteur fat man hahaha, kinda funny

 

[dkwrtw]

lol yeah it said I was inconsistent because I'm against torture yet in that given situation I would torture the fat man.

 

[Accountable]

there really isn't any external evidence tho, is there?

None that you'll accept. And the question was about God, not Jesus.

 

[edgray]

None that you'll accept. And the question was about God, not Jesus.

none that anyone can accept.

Where's this proof of God?

 

[Accountable]

That is so confusing what the quiz quote said :willy_nilly:

I think I might get it though...if God can defy logic and the impossible, then trying to prove his existence isn't constrained by rationality.

Any being that can create reality is not constrained by rationality.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Really depends though...if you think that truth is justifiable because one has a strong conviction about it, with no external evidence, then God exists. However, if truth is more something you go by with science, well science can't test questions of meaning or value or things like religion.

 

[Accountable]

none that anyone can accept.

Where's this proof of God?

there really isn't any external evidence tho, is there? Not one single shred in secular history about Jesus, the contents of the Bible or the huge meal of breaded fish that Jesus fondly served to thousands.

 

[Accountable]

Really depends though...if you think that truth is justifiable because one has a strong conviction about it, with no external evidence, then God exists.

Ah ah!

Careful. That's only justification, not proof.