|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Game - Battleground God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
First go play
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm Then discuss. I scored a hit, but I'll take it again. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iname Junior Member (Idle past 3914 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
RAZD writes: Enjoy. 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 Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I played the other game which was recommended to play beforehand and I was asked this by the "meta-physical engineers":
Can God do the illogical? The metaphysical engineers request clarification of what you mean when you say God is able to do anything. In the model, God was asked to make 2 + 2 = 5 (where all the terms hold their common meanings). She could not do so and the model broke down. It seems that no being can ever do what is logically impossible. It is not just beyond the wit of humanity to make 2 + 2 = 5, such a thing is a contradiction in terms. So the metaphysical engineers seek your permission to understand by all-powerful that God can do anything which is logically possible. Before accepting this, however, you should understand that by accepting the limits of logical possibility on God, you are leaving open the possibility that, if some characteristics you attribute to God turn out to entail logical contradictions, you must give these up. It means, in effect, accepting that rationality is a constraint on God (though it is a moot point exactly what the word constraint means in this regard). 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I got the squaring the circle one wrong.
I feel cheated I thought god was at least an Epic Level Spellcaster: obviously not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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." 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: 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: 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I got through this without too much difficulty: no hits and no bullets. Fairly easy if you know where it is coming from and what their innate biases would be for the answers.
quote: 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: 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yet I see no gray area whatsoever When I read the question I see them both saying exactly the same thing. 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 239 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
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: I was thinking in terms of the argument to ignorance fallacy. argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com Oh well. Fun game, Razd.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024