|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Game - Battleground God | |||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes, can you show me where in question 10 you have to choose between rational and belief? It's rather blatant in question 14. I have no idea what the relevance is. In number 10 it simply states it is rational to believe in the non-existence of an entity that has been looked for and not found. In number 14 it states that it is not rational (faith) to believe in the non-existence of an entity that has been looked for and not found. In the latter you are asked to decide whether or not it is rational to believe that God doesn't exist, or whether it is a matter of faith.
This is equivocating. Using different words to say the same thing: it is still belief. And hence why I started off saying that we evidently think that faith means something different. It seems to me you are equivocating between faith and belief. Faith is belief with no rationality behind it.
It is still what you believe will happen. The amount of confidence doesn't change the fact that it is what you believe will happen. No, but if I believe that the next card revealed will contain my soul, and I can give you no rational reason why...then that belief is faith-based. If jokers have never been seen in 900 years of card searching, and I believe that a joker will be revealed in this 99-card deck for not rational reason...that is faith. It is strange that you see faith and belief as being the same. Especially since number 10 asks you about rationality and belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Zawi Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 126 From: UK Joined: |
Perfect score and a medal of honour .
At the beginning it pretty much lets you define what God is. I didn't want to stick to the Abrahamic definition of an all powerful God because there have been so many different types of God throughout history. The God in question could well be a Greek God who is subject to all the immoral urges that a man is. So I answered false for any statement about God's perfect morality or ability to do anything. Edited by Zawi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Zawi Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 126 From: UK Joined: |
I've never come across the jokers in the deck problem before, it's pretty interesting. Can it really be compared to the search of Nessie though? The premise that there may be jokers in a pack of cards is far more believable than that of there being a monster in the Loch Ness. The analogy would work better if you were searching for something that has never been found in a deck of cards before, or anywhere else for that matter. That's why I think that if there was no evidence yet of there being a Loch Ness monster then it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist, because the premise is so bizarre.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... far more believable than that of there being a monster in the Loch Ness. The problem most people see is that you have a condition where virtually every stone has been turned over, every nook and cranny investigated, with subs, sonar and acoustic recordings. And you are trying to hide a huge prehistoric (or unknown similar) beast that is voracious of appetite, mortal, sexually reproductive, etc.
That's why I think that if there was no evidence yet of there being a Loch Ness monster then it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist, because the premise is so bizarre. But are you looking for the "monster" or the myth of the monster? Let me pose the question a different way: do you think it is possible to find an explanation for the various sightings? ie -- do you think that every single sighting, blurred photo etc is faked or do you think that some are a sighting of something natural, but rare, and unusual. Would finding the dead body of something like Tesla's oarfish qualify as "finding the monster"? Enjoy.
click for google maps of Loch Ness 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Mod, I don't want to tie up the thread with this, so this will likely be my last run at it. I've stated my position, you've stated yours, they are different.
And hence why I started off saying that we evidently think that faith means something different. It seems to me you are equivocating between faith and belief. Faith is belief with no rationality behind it. So you distinguish belief as rational and faith as irrational? That would explain your understanding of question 14 -- to paraphrase: "it's a matter of irrationality, not rationality?"
I see no need for belief to necessarily be rational. Without evidence one way or the other (for or against), it is something assumed to be true, but that you cannot be sure is true.
Nor do I see faith as being necessarily irrational. Without evidence one way or the other (for or against), it is something that is assumed to be true, but that you cannot be sure is true. Looks to me like they are synonyms, that neither rest on facts, evidence or logical proofs, but both are assumed to be true.
No, but if I believe that the next card revealed will contain my soul, and I can give you no rational reason why...then that belief is faith-based. Thanks for the honest answer ... before you went off on a tangent.
If jokers have never been seen in 900 years of card searching, and I believe that a joker will be revealed in this 99-card deck for not rational reason...that is faith. All you are doing is increasing your hypothetical level of confidence to the point where you are comfortable saying that faith\belief in a joker is irrational ... however in reality -- with both nessies and religions, you also have reports of people seeing jokers, people you may not take seriously because you think they are irrational ...
It is strange that you see faith and belief as being the same. Especially since number 10 asks you about rationality and belief. As I said at the beginning I see question 10 - "it is rational to believe" - as being a question of faith AND rational -- faith that the evidence will continue to come up negative and rational to conclude that nessie -- certainly as the "hollywood myth" version of events - does not exist. But that you cannot make that conclusion without the hidden premise based on faith\belief that the evidence will continue to be negative. I see question 14 - "is a matter of faith, not rationality" - as being a question of faith OR rational, and which is more critical to the conclusion. To me there is no question that the hidden premise - whether it is faith that the evidence will continue to be negative OR faith that positive evidence will be found OR that it may be one or the other -- is the critical element to whether the conclusion is atheism, theism or agnosticism, and thus the conclusion is one based on faith more than rationality. Whether it is god, nessie or jokers in the deck. And I do seem to remember going through all of this once before ... but I can't find an old thread on this game. I just note one last thing ... Message 19 ... I bit the bullet by answering false to question 10 and true to question 14.
Interesting.I just went through with 10 false & 14 false, and then with 10 true & 14 false, both with no hits and no bullets, so it appears that the criteria is your answer to 14 alone. So there is something wrong however you look at it: 10 true + 14 true = hit10 false + 14 true = hit 10 true + 14 false = bye 10 false + 14 false = bye If true\true is a hit, then false\false should be a hit and either true\false or false\true should be a bye. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The God in question could well be a Greek God who is subject to all the immoral urges that a man is. So I answered false for any statement about God's perfect morality or ability to do anything. Or american indian? Do you think that it is consistent then to think that such a kind of god could not exist? Let me phrase it a little differently: the god you end up with doesn't necessarily leave evidence of godly behavior - perhaps they can teleport from planet to planet and shape change to party with the locals - so is the absence of evidence a valid criteria to believe they don't exist? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : amerind 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
The problem of suffering Your God is omnipotent (all-powerful, able to do anything), omnibenevolent (all-loving) and omniscient (all-knowing). The metaphysical engineers have found it hard to model this God in a universe like our own. The problem is this: our universe contains vast amounts of suffering, much of which seems either entirely unnecessary or unnecessarily severe. Although some of this is the result of human action, and thus may be seen as an inevitable consequence of human free will, much is not. Plagues, floods and famines are not all the result of human action. Even the idea that human free will explains the existence of much suffering is hard to accept, since God, if all-powerful, could surely limit our capacity to harm others or suffer at their hands (after all, there are many other limits on what we are able to do). So why is there all this suffering? If God cannot prevent it, it would seem she is not all-powerful. If God doesn't want to stop it, it would seem she is not all-loving. If God doesn't know about it, she can't be all-knowing. The metaphysical engineers are continuing to study theodicies, which are attempts to resolve this difficulty, known as the problem of evil. How does suffering = not all powerful? Just because humans do not like suffering, does not make it bad. We "suffer" as children to learn lessons that will sustain us later in life. I think the website is pure bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Not so personal after all? The metaphysical engineers are finding it hard to understand how, on your conception of God, one can have a personal relationship with her. Personal relationships appear to depend on a number of things. Sufficient similarity between the persons in the relationship is one. Another is that both are persons, or are, at least, person-like, as some higher primates, for example, appear to be. The problem is that in our universe there seem to be no genuine personal relationships between things of great difference. And God, as you have described her, is vastly different from human beings. People can have feelings for things which are similar to those they have towards people. Affection or love for places or objects, for example, is common. But this is not the same as having a personal relationship with them. In a similar way, people have relationships with animals, maybe a cat. But this does not seem to be the same as a personal relationship, because of the great difference in the way the person relates to the animal and the way the animal relates to the person. Perhaps this is the kind of relationship which you envisaged?
If a relationship with an animal is not personal, then what is it? Does it really matter how one relates, or just the simple fact that we relate? I relate to animals, and it is personal. More bullshit. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
My last two responses were from "Do-It-Yourself Deity" which I did first as they suggest.
Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction! Well I never said such a thing. I said that being an atheist is faith. So is believing in God. Pretty much everything we believe in is faith, it is just the size of the relative leap.
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 very few 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. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets. Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement! What a joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
All you are doing is increasing your hypothetical level of confidence to the point where you are comfortable saying that faith\belief in a joker is irrational ... however in reality -- with both nessies and religions, you also have reports of people seeing jokers, people you may not take seriously because you think they are irrational ... You can add sightings of jokers into the equation if you'd like. You'd have to make them the same kind of level of sightings of Nessie and religious icons: vague, perhaps contradictory, few witnesses, little investigation (or biased investigation) into their genuineness etc etc. It doesn't really change my overall point, it just makes it more involved to type it out. But the bottom line is that as I said in the beginning we are using different definitions of the word faith - I appreciated you didn't want a debate over it so I didn't go into specifics, but you seemed to want more explanation from me. You were using definition 1 from your list. I was using definition 2. I used definition 2 because of the context: it seemed to be contrasting rationality with faith. In question 10 it was asking whether the belief was rational or not. In question 14 it was asking whether the the belief was rational or not.
you distinguish belief as rational and faith as irrational? No. I think there are many categories of belief. Some of them are faith-based (Belief that does not rest on logical proof, to quote your dictionary) some of them are rational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But the bottom line is that as I said in the beginning we are using different definitions of the word faith - I appreciated you didn't want a debate over it so I didn't go into specifics, but you seemed to want more explanation from me. You were using definition 1 from your list. I was using definition 2. I used definition 2 because of the context: it seemed to be contrasting rationality with faith. In question 10 it was asking whether the belief was rational or not. In question 14 it was asking whether the the belief was rational or not. I was pointing out how similar belief/2 and faith/1 were, as you asked if I thought they were synonyms. They are, and even definition 2 says it. The only difference I see is that faith has religious overtones that are tenuous with belief (as it is more general, dealing with ufo, nessies etc).
You can add sightings of jokers into the equation if you'd like. You'd have to make them the same kind of level of sightings of Nessie and religious icons: vague, perhaps contradictory, few witnesses, little investigation (or biased investigation) into their genuineness etc etc. It doesn't really change my overall point, it just makes it more involved to type it out. You talked about having different levels of confidence, and I find it a little amusing that you needed to make the case even stronger than 99% of the cards known ... you can do all kinds of things to the parameters, but the essential point is that you really are not sure with either case -- you may have a high degree of confidence in your belief (faith/1) when you've seen 99% of the cards vs 10%, but you still don't know for sure. You are, of course, free to interpret it your way. My main problem with the questions is that they are supposed to be catching you out for being inconsistent. To do that the questions need to be consistent, and I don't see they are. But it also appears to be a beta version that never went further, so there are some rough edges. I see a fundamental difference between the two questions. 10. When you have a belief that is not supported or contradicted by loads of evidence and logic - is it rationality to conclude 14. When you have a belief that is not supported or contradicted by loads of evidence and logic - is it more a matter of faith (the confident belief in the truth of your conclusion) or one of rationality to conclude No. I think there are many categories of belief. Some of them are faith-based (Belief that does not rest on logical proof, to quote your dictionary) some of them are rational. I don't know of belief that is founded on evidence and logic without being based on at least one assumption. There is always a question at the end - the last card - where you don't know, and you assume one way or the other. That is why I made the analogy of the deck of cards and the joker. You have to turn over the last card to know for sure. In the end, without sure knowledge, you have to make an assumption that your belief is correct. In the end your choice is made based on your belief - whether you consider the belief rational or not. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think the website is pure bullshit. I think it is self-indulgent, and blind to it's own biases. 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 was pointing out how similar belief/2 and faith/1 were, as you asked if I thought they were synonyms. They are, and even definition 2 says it. Definition 2 indicates that faith is a specific type of belief. 'Church' and 'building' are not synonyms even if a definition of 'Church' indicates that it is a building.
You talked about having different levels of confidence, and I find it a little amusing that you needed to make the case even stronger than 99% of the cards known ... you can do all kinds of things to the parameters, but the essential point is that you really are not sure with either case -- you may have a high degree of confidence in your belief (faith/1) when you've seen 99% of the cards vs 10%, but you still don't know for sure. I never stated that can know for sure - that would be an absurd claim. I understand that using your definition this is the case. That is why I said that the difference that separates us is that we are using two different definitions of the same word. There's no need to repeat your position again - if we are using the words differently, we're going to reach different conclusions about the meaning of the sentences in the quiz.
You are, of course, free to interpret it your way. My main problem with the questions is that they are supposed to be catching you out for being inconsistent. To do that the questions need to be consistent, and I don't see they are. But it also appears to be a beta version that never went further, so there are some rough edges. I see a fundamental difference between the two questions Exactly - and it's interesting to explore just how differently people interpret short statements.
. When you have a belief that is not supported or contradicted by loads of evidence and logic - is it more a matter of faith (the confident belief in the truth of your conclusion) or one of rationality to conclude The reason we don't see eye to eye here, for example is interesting. I see faith and rationality to be contrasted. I consider it rational to have developed a strong confidence in the truth of the conclusion of the lack of existence. That is why answered true for the first of the pair. It looks impossible to answer true to this, without also concluding it is a matter of rationalism in the latter case. You saw the word faith here to mean confident belief which you don't consider to be rational. So how did you answer true for the first one? It seems like you didn't see it as an either/or - but thought that it was asking about which is more true.
I don't know of belief that is founded on evidence and logic without being based on at least one assumption. Well of course, but then, as I said, any conclusion is faith-based since all conclusions rely on at least one epistemological assumption.
You have to turn over the last card to know for sure. Of course you wouldn't be sure then, if it came up no joker - maybe you missed it, forgot it or misinterpreted it. Maybe you slipped past a card. Maybe you are hallucinating, or have 'joker blindness'. There is no way to know anything for sure, as you have just said - even empirical tests such as examining all cards in a 99 card deck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Mod,
The reason we don't see eye to eye here, for example is interesting. I see faith and rationality to be contrasted. In question 14, agreed, but not in question 10. Question 10 asks if the faith\belief in the absence of a monster nessie is rational.
I consider it rational to have developed a strong confidence in the truth of the conclusion of the lack of existence. ... You saw the word faith here to mean confident belief which you don't consider to be rational. So how did you answer true for the first one? Perhaps the key is the meaning of rational.
Is it rational to believe in the non-existence of the "hollywood monster" version of nessie? Yes, because such belief is not contradicted by the evidence and it is consistent with your experiences and beliefs and the experiences of people who have not been witness to a sighting. Is it rational to believe in a natural explanation for some of the sightings known collectively as "nessie"? Yes, because such belief is not contradicted by the evidence and it is consistent with your experiences and beliefs and the (anecdotal) experience of people who have been witness to a sighting. It is rational to believe something that is not contradicted by facts and that is consistent with your experiences and beliefs and the (anecdotal) experiences of others. There are many people that believe in possibility of things that others don't -- ghosts for example -- and we don't label them insane because of that belief. Thus the answer to 10 is that it is rational to believe that "nessie" exists, and it is rational to believe that it doesn't: the belief either way is rational.
Well of course, but then, as I said, any conclusion is faith-based since all conclusions rely on at least one epistemological assumption. And when your answer to the question "does god exist" depends on your assumption to determine whether your answer is yes or no, then your answer either way may be rational -- not contradicted by the facts and consistent with your experiences and beliefs and the (anecdotal) experiences of others -- but it is based on the assumption, and the faith that you are right in making that assumption. The rational element does not predict what the individual answer will be, the assumption (belief\faith) does. If both answers are rational, which is the way I see it, then the choice of which you believe is based on (belief\faith\assumption). Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : format 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: |
Question 10 asks if the faith\belief in the absence of a monster nessie is rational. Yes, once again - a difference in the way we interpret the words. It just asks if the belief in the absence of a monster is rational. So I see it saying 'is it a rational belief?'
There are many people that believe in possibility of things that others don't -- ghosts for example -- and we don't label them insane because of that belief. Well of course not. Do you think that there is some labelling of insane implied by myself or the questions?
The rational element does not predict what the individual answer will be, the assumption (belief\faith) does. Right - the epistemological assumption is what leads to the conclusion. If you conclude that the Nessie case is rational, but you use a contradictory epistemological assumption in the God case to conclude that it is not rational - there is a contradiction.
If both answers are rational, which is the way I see it, then the choice of which you believe is based on (belief\faith\assumption). And yet when I read question 14 I see it asking is atheism rational xor is it based on faith. If you answer that it is based on faith you are necessarily saying (according to the structure of the question as I read it) that it is not rational. Out of curiosity, did you see it the 'or' as inclusive? That would be an interesting alternative angle to explore.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024