rebelnerd

I'm new to this board and took the "test"....
Pasted below:

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

Click here if you want to see a complete listing of the questions that you answered.

Bitten Bullet 1

You 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 no certain 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 is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.

****************

I disagreed with the wording of question 6 but given the choices answered as I did. I look forward to joining in other discussions later after I have lurked for a while longer so as not to appear a total idiot.

Filo

freemonkey

1 direct hit, no bullets. I was doing great until the last question, which I answered the way I did because I guess I got mixed up about the difference between someone else "wanting" to believe in god vs. being "justified" in believing.

AdamWho

Medal of honour

Straight Hate

Zero hits, 2 bullets.

Pleased to hear my views are logically sound. As for me holding views that seem strange to others, I pass the blame off on poor wording, and statements made which I both agree and disagree with.

"Question 13
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists."

I bit a bullet here because I answered true to "Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true." The fact that we have "proven"/shown/demonstrated that adaptation over time occurs is a hell of a lot more believable than some God existing because a 2000 year-old book says so. I've a bone to pick with this one.


"Question 16
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72."

Because God is an all-powerful, all-knowing being capable of anything, why not? If such a being can exist, why can't a reality (or an infinite number of them) exist where that is possible? I *personally* don't believe that, but on a matter of principle... (I am not stating B must be true cause A is, but rather that it's no different to believe in B than it is A, because both are equally 'outlandish') In any event, I was accused of having a view that would make a rational discussion about God impossible.

Neat quiz, though.

liquid

I like the idea of the quiz.

I took a hit, because the answers I selected claimed the need for absolute proof of a god but not absolute proof, just overwhelming evidence for evolution.

But actually it happened because I interpreted the language used incorrectly, and if I had read it as was meant, I wouldn't have selected that answer about proof for god. But didn't bother doing it all again.

Off to try it posing as a theist now!

liquid

Just had another board, with more of a theist/secular mix, doing this. From my very unscientific survey, it seems the theists are on average taking a few more hits and bullets. But there seems to be a bigger correlation between the 'quality' of the poster (i.e. people who think things through and actually read what people write) and less hits. But there are plenty of outliers.

What the theists DO seem to do however, is complain about the reasoning a lot more (Despite the fact that most of it is actually uncontentious and agreed upon by philosophers and theologians). I seriously have one who refuses to believe that a totally omni- god, who is above even logic and rationality, is essentially irrational, and so rational arguments for its (non-)existence are essentially worthless.

Just my observations.

Liquidrage

Two bullets, and I don't agree with either of them

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.

I don't see this as a bullet.
If one were to assume that a god existed I see nothing wrong in also assuming that said god is capable of acts outside of our realm of understanding.

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 no certain 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 is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

This also is odd to me.
It falls under "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
If my neighbor told me aliens kidnapped his wife, he best be ready to back that up.
If he told me he just got back from the mall, I'd take it at face value.

liquid

Liquidrage, you must have missed my previous post:

You stated:

The point the site makes is nothing to do with the existence of God. You answered a question implying that God is above logic. You then answered a question stating it is possible to provide logical arguments for god. This is a contradiction - god is either subject to rationality, and hence can be supported or negated by it, or above logic, and therefore totally immune to all rational concepts and arguments.

It has no impact on whether he exists or not, but an irrational god is a conceptual irrelevance (by definition, can not be disproved or proved or even evidenced for - indeed, he might both exist and not exist!), and so is ignored.

I got caught out by the second point as well, but I think for both of us it is due to bad wording in the evolution question. It all depends on you interpretation of 'may be', 'proof' and 'incorrect in small details'. So if you took the question to mean something different than the answer implies, I would ignore it. I re-did the test, answering the actual question that was posed rather than the one I though was being posed, and got through unscathed.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: liquid ]</p>

Liquidrage

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

and

I seriously have one who refuses to believe that a totally omni- god, who is above even logic and rationality, is essentially irrational, and so rational arguments for its (non-)existence are essentially worthless.

My take:
Just because a god is capable of making a square circle doesn't mean that this feat, or any other feat we could think of, is irrational to said diety. While it may seem unatural to us, it might not be to this god.
If omni-god exists, then omni god knows how the hell omni-god does whatever it is that omni-god does.

Summary:
Just because it appears irrational to us does not mean that it is to a *god*. Therefor, it is ok to continue to use logic to rationalize the existance of a god even if said god was able to perform acts which are not rational to us.

liquid

Liquidrage (confusing names for a debate huh!?) - I think your counter needs to be addressed at two points.

1. Presumably the god does know how it does things. But as you point out, it still seems irrational to *us*. And that is the key. Because the arguments that are consequently irrelevant are *our* arguments. So it makes not a jot of a difference what the god does or does not know - the only point is because you implied *we* can't say anything rational about god, then you cannot claim that there *we* can make rational arguments that support god. Neither of these statements are incorrect individually, but they are inconsistent.

Let me try an example.

A property of god is that he can make square circles. We can't rationalise square circles, so we can't rationalise god.

2. Rationality and the laws of logic are human defined. They are only applicable to human arguments. So of course they will not affect your concept of god, but they do still bind humans. (This is something of an aside really)