cpickett

TPM Medal of Honour.

Calzaer

That's the bullet I bit. I said he was indeed justified... but I also wanted to say that we're just as justified (if not moreso) in dipping his ass in batter and frying it.

ex-xian

I passed thru unscathed. Just wanted to comment that the last time I took this test was before my deconversion (I was still known as xianseeker). That time I bit the bullet once, and, I believe, I got hit once.

Just goes to show that a healthy dose of unbelief can save your life.

Tercel

Yeah, I've done the test a few times in the past, and the first time I really struggled with those two questions and a couple of others. The trick is to reading the questions really carefully. In several questions I agreed with the gist of what was been said, but their insertion of an extra trick-clause into the statement meant I had to reject it.

Anyway, I typically get through unscathed. (As a theist)

Nowhere357

Very good! That's why I found #12 problematic. The question forced me to assign some sort of limit to gods power.

Tercel

Diana,

The game's claim with regard to omnipotence is one I've considered before so I can see where it's coming from. What you said was that omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible. (Typical atheist definition of the concept! ) Now if we really use this definition and assert that God is omnipotent, then it is being asserted that God is outside the bounds of logic and rationality. Once that assertion is made, there is little point in discussing whether God is a rational or coherent concept or whether it is logical that He exists. The statement that God includes a logical impossibility either means He logically doesn't exist or that He is outside the bounds of logical argument.

Now, I admit that it may be the case that God is capable of doing things I currently consider to be logically impossible. However, for the sake of discussing God rationally, I (and most other theists) are happy to limit our definition of omnipotence to something that makes God a rationally coherent concept and hence a reasonable subject of logical discussion.

Of course, this never stopped many atheists from putting their own spins on what they think Omniscience, Omnipotence etc should mean, in order to rule that God as impossible and incoherent...
That's not really a compliment. The test is effectively telling you that your ideas about God are so screwed up that even an averagely dull-minded fundy probably wouldn't buy them.

Theli

After running the test I must conclude that I wasn't too pleased with some of the answers I gave, because in many cases neither of the options should be considered true. Here's an example:
The problem here is that I already acknowledge the impossibility of omnipotence, yet this quiz asks me to define it.
An omnipotent being would not be able to create square circles and still remain omnipotent, as "square circle" is a contradictory concept. I could not use it to describe any geometrical form created by god, because then the failure would lie in me (the observer).

CALDONIA

That was fun!

I got three bits and no hits, but was tripped up by the omniscience question and the "proof" question in regard to evolution ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). Evolution is believable, but God needs a little more dusting for fingerprints.

Theli

The atheist that points out the impossibility of omnipotence would never claim that god was omnipotent, because that would make him a theist.
He/she would claim that omnipotence is part of the concept of god, but also that the concept is void and cannot apply to something that actually exist.

Theli

I was more puzzled by this claim:
"The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true."
What's "certain proof"?
Isn't evidence proof? and how certain does it need to be?