Battleground God

Check out Battleground God, a test which examines the logical consistency of your beliefs regarding God, no matter where they may lie. It also helpfully explains why an answer is logically inconsistent, if indeed an answer is (how’s that for convoluted sentence structure?).

FYI, I came out unscathed from the test, logically, but I bit 2 bullets (argued things that others might find strange or unpalatable), emerging with the ‘Medal of Distinction’. How did you do?

(Shamelessly stolen from Mr. Philosopher himself, Brahm)

18 Replies to “Battleground God”

  1. Medal of Distinction. I took a hit but no bullets. However, I disagree with their logical analysis on my hit.

    They say, “You’ve just taken a direct hit! 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!”

    I think that it’s not justifiable to hold beliefs *regardless* of external evidence against it, but you can believe in something if there is no positive external evidence for it.

    In math, *ahem*, you are free to posit the truth or falsity or a statement unless it causes a contradition. If somehting does not cause a contradiction by positing that is true, and then the same is the case if you posit that it is false, you call that “incomplete” and you are free to decide either way.

    There are several examples of such arguments in math. For instance, it is taken for granted by most people that two parallel lines never meet. But mathematicians now know that geometery is still consistent if parallel lines meet (like on a sphere) or if they diverge (like on a saddle) in curved space. So we all all free to believe whatever we like.

    (It may interest some readers to know that a crazy mathematician named Godel proved that any system complex enough to do basic arithematic will always have such statements – that can be true or false without causing contraditions in the system. Godel tried to use this argument to prove that God does exist. I would use the same argument to argue that he doesn’t – that this shows that simple systems produce mysterious and unexplainable facts without needing any supernatural causes)

    To summarize, if there is evidence against your position you have to take that into consideration. If there is no compelling evidence in either direction you are free to believe what you like because it doesn’t cause any contradictions in the system.

    I’m an athiest not because I’m compelled to be so due to lack of evidence, but that lack of evidence does have alot to do with why I don’t believe in God.

    I don’t think that someone is logically wrong for believing in God. They would be unjustified in doing so if there was solid evidence against, but there is none that I’m aware of and probably can’t be.

    I would also be safe, logically, if I believed in many Gods, or if I was God myself – despite the lack of positive evidence for either case, because there isn’t negative evidence either.

  2. Medal of Distinction. I took a hit but no bullets. However, I disagree with their logical analysis on my hit.

    They say, “You’ve just taken a direct hit! 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!”

    I think that it’s not justifiable to hold beliefs *regardless* of external evidence against it, but you can believe in something if there is no positive external evidence for it.

    In math, *ahem*, you are free to posit the truth or falsity or a statement unless it causes a contradition. If somehting does not cause a contradiction by positing that is true, and then the same is the case if you posit that it is false, you call that “incomplete” and you are free to decide either way.

    There are several examples of such arguments in math. For instance, it is taken for granted by most people that two parallel lines never meet. But mathematicians now know that geometery is still consistent if parallel lines meet (like on a sphere) or if they diverge (like on a saddle) in curved space. So we all all free to believe whatever we like.

    (It may interest some readers to know that a crazy mathematician named Godel proved that any system complex enough to do basic arithematic will always have such statements – that can be true or false without causing contraditions in the system. Godel tried to use this argument to prove that God does exist. I would use the same argument to argue that he doesn’t – that this shows that simple systems produce mysterious and unexplainable facts without needing any supernatural causes)

    To summarize, if there is evidence against your position you have to take that into consideration. If there is no compelling evidence in either direction you are free to believe what you like because it doesn’t cause any contradictions in the system.

    I’m an athiest not because I’m compelled to be so due to lack of evidence, but that lack of evidence does have alot to do with why I don’t believe in God.

    I don’t think that someone is logically wrong for believing in God. They would be unjustified in doing so if there was solid evidence against, but there is none that I’m aware of and probably can’t be.

    I would also be safe, logically, if I believed in many Gods, or if I was God myself – despite the lack of positive evidence for either case, because there isn’t negative evidence either.

  3. i received the medal of distinction too, with the same error message that day got.

    uh oh, did i just type error message? too much time in front of the computer!

  4. i received the medal of distinction too, with the same error message that day got.

    uh oh, did i just type error message? too much time in front of the computer!

  5. An interesting test, but it is extremely limiting. For example, the first question asks if God exists. the choices are true, false, and don’t know. I believe in God, the God of Jesus, but do not know for sure. its something i believe, not take as pure fact. so i answered i don’t know. Later in the test this threw off an answer in which i said it is immoral to torture innocents. Again, it was an interesting test, but a flawed attempt to contain God into a series of questions.

  6. An interesting test, but it is extremely limiting. For example, the first question asks if God exists. the choices are true, false, and don't know. I believe in God, the God of Jesus, but do not know for sure. its something i believe, not take as pure fact. so i answered i don't know. Later in the test this threw off an answer in which i said it is immoral to torture innocents. Again, it was an interesting test, but a flawed attempt to contain God into a series of questions.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.