Game - Battleground God

First go playhttp://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htmThen discuss.I scored a hit, but I'll take it again.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I almost had to bite a bullet, but only because I wasn't reading the evolution question correctly and answered 'false' (That's what I get for only reading the first part). Other than that mix up I scored perfectly.

I took a bullet, but only because the system is defining all justifications equally.Specifically, I agreed 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, I disagreed that a rapist who believes god told him to rape was justified. It claims this is a contradiction, but only if we assume that all beliefs can be justified this way, and I don't think they can. Some beliefs are justifiable without external evidence. Some are not. For example, beliefs about socially constructed models can only be justified by inner conviction for that is their place of origin.But things of material origin, on the other hand, don't depend upon what you believe.The test even makes this explicit claim, "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," but it doesn't understand the issue is centered on the term "any."Not "any" belief, but there is at least one.Ah, but morality is a socially constructed model! So why does the rapist get punished? Because the rapist doesn't really believe rape is a good thing. He's only doing it because he thinks god told him to. That's coercion. And since it was established (in a previous question) that god does not necessarily have the good of the world at heart, "god told me to" is not necessarily justification.Because there is a difference between things that affect only yourself and things that affect others. F'rinstance, if I want to take my car to the junkyard and have it crushed into a cube, that's my business. But if you do it without my permission, even though I was going to do it anyway, that's theft. That's because it is conceivable that I would have changed my mind at the last moment or wanted the experience of doing it myself etc.Rape involves more than one person and we have to take that other person's opinion into account.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I bit a bullet when I stated that if a being existed that would be right to call God, she could make square circles and make 1+1=72. I stated so because I had earlier stated that if a being existed that would be right to call God, she could do anything.At first I was confused about that (because I hadn't read how it was scored until after) because those two statements are not fundamentally different and I thought they were indicating a logical contradiction, but then I read what "bit the bullet" meant (expressing views that are strange, incredible or unpalatable) and I felt much better Interesting game RAZD, thanks!

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

I just conferred with my roommate and we decided that that was a "very good fucking answer!" The reasons were lost in a mouthful of gummi bears.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Jumped right in and no problem. 0 hits 0 bullets. Probably just a Spinoza thing {it was probably one of us who made the test to begin with }Edited by anglagard, : be cool

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I played the other game which was recommended to play beforehand and I was asked this by the "meta-physical engineers": This ties into the bullet I had to bite so I wished to comment on it.My own conception of what a god should be is that it could do anything it wished to. In the Battleground game I was asked if an entity I called "God" could make a square circle or make 1+1=72 and I said yes.My reasoning behind that is that if an entity which I endowed the title of "God" on (besides various music or game playing gods ) could do anything then it could make square circles and at the same time make us believe/know that circles are squares. The definition of a circle is completely human defined (but necessarily constant). The values of 1 and 72 are human defined (but necessarily constant). If I was "God" I could make those definitions different. I could change the laws of physics. I could make everyone believe/know that nothing had changed.And I (not "God" I) could do nothing about it. Nothing indicates that anything has changed and if this omnipotent god I imagined has changed anything the world looks the same to me. So I can continue to believe/know that the universe and the physical laws that govern it and the mathematics taught to me and the science taught to me is the same as it ever was even if some god made square circles (but left no evidence that it was ever different once upon a time). Unless I have somehow remembered that circle are circles, then it makes no difference to me and I can carry on a rational discourse about "God" and the universe and everything else.Rationality is not a constraint on "God" if all we have is our own rational (or emotional) questions. If "God" can do anything, then "God" can do anything.I live in the real world and if some god has fucked with us, then so be it, but it is fun to watch some people squirm under the constraints a book has imposed upon them for their own conception of "God."

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

I got the squaring the circle one wrong.I feel cheated I thought god was at least an Epic Level Spellcaster: obviously not.

I couldn't agree to that because it allowed one to believe something that is contradicted by evidence.The rapist issue was used to distract you from the same question worded differently.

quote:

---

15. 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 question is whether he was justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will, based on a a firm, inner conviction.What that conviction actually was and what the subsequent behavior involved are irrelevant to the question of whether he was justified in his belief or not.I took a hit on the Loch Ness monster v atheism questions:

quote:

---

10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

​

14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

---

If I had more options than true/false I would say that both are more a matter of faith rather than rationality, both are a belief that {X} does not exist, both are based on incomplete information, both are based on the assumption that all new evidence will confirm all the old evidence, but that rationally one would allow both beliefs to be falsified.In other words both conclusions, imho, are more a matter of faith than of rationality.What I see is that the question is changed from (a) "is it rational to believe that {X} does not exist" in 10 to (b) "is it more a matter of faith than of rationality to believe that {X} does not exist" in 14. Thus I did, and would continue to, answer (a) true for both 10 and 14 and (b) true for both 10 and 14.But let's not open up the old atheist\belief argument that has already been done too many times on other threads ... it's just a game with some bad word choices.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I got through this without too much difficulty: no hits and no bullets. Had to stop to parse a few of the statements, but otherwise plain sailing. Got my Medal of Honor and all that.I seem to remember playing it a few years back with similar fate. I guess my philosophy is, if nothing else, non-contradictory (as far as the resolution of this test can detect anyway). I suppose that is a good thing, but as they say, sometimes there is enough ambigiuty that what people understand the question to say, might be different that what they intended it to say. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No hits, no bullets.Strict atheism in all responces.When I have time I'll try again from (my conception) of a religionist.If I understand the methods used, it is the logical consistancy of belief that is the test.Is there such a thing as a logical, rational religionist?

Fairly easy if you know where it is coming from and what their innate biases would be for the answers.

quote:

---

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

​

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

​

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit.

---

I've already addressed the "hit" (Message 9) and why I think it is a bit of a reach, but it's not surprising within the limits of the format ... and the biases behind it ...

quote:

---

A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats.

​

First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.

---

As noted before I feel they changed the question (or the emphasis) between 10 and 14 such that there is a gray area where both can logically be considered true.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Yet I see no gray area whatsoever When I read the question I see them both saying exactly the same thing. I guess we have differing understandings of the word, faith and/or rationality. Perhaps they should incorporate that into the game?

Would you agree that in 10 the choice was that belief AND rational was true, while in 14 the choice was that belief OR rational was true?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I bit one bullet, but had no direct hits. I bit the bullet by answering false to question 10 and true to question 14.Here is their response:

quote:

---

You've just bitten a bullet! You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

​

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

---

I was thinking in terms of the argument to ignorance fallacy.argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comOh well. Fun game, Razd.