found this game on a philosophy website. Anyone else played it?

http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi

According to my results I have firm beliefs that were only challenged by my inner convictions vs external evidence.

Sure, it points out your contradictions, but only to preordained questions and answers, which may themselves generate the contradictions.

E.g: They asked if God must want to reduce suffering. I (thinking benevolent God) said "Yes"'. Then, it is asked if God was capable of making what is sinful right, or something like that, in which case the two are brought into question and contradiction.

The answer is that God as a concept is supposedly omnipotent by definition, therefore contradictions inherently arise. This isn't a weakness in my belief but in the ideas we're arguing with.

Same with whether we declare belief in God to be foolish when there is no irrevocable evidence, yet I admitted that evolutionary theory was largely true, but not 100% accurate to the letter. Suddenly I'm using double standards, and have to admit that I'm doing so. And I am. I hold God to a matter of entirely different standard of evidence than the theory of evolution. Am I wrong? The theory of evolution is a scientific observation of a natural process, whereas God is an omnipotent contradictory entity that flies in the face of scientific thought. Do the two require the same standard of evidence?

I got the 2nd award. Two bullets bitten, one direct hit. Still, clever little page!

awarded the TPM service medal!!!

wow!!

will I go to heaven??

i gots teh medal.

How did you do compared to other people?

* 424543 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered zero direct hits and bit 2 bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
* 45.78% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
* 7.73% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

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 totally fucking disagree with this statement. I don't deserve that bullet, cause it's bullshit.


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 totally fucking disagree with this too, for the simple fact that I have always maintained that faith can NOT be discussed rationally. I have always been consistant in this idea.

One direct hit and two bullets bitten.

Yeah...they change context and then tell you that you contradict yourself. Furthermore, you cannot clarify any questions.
(I took 1 direct hit and bit 2 bullets.)

Bullshit test, the only bullet I took was this one:

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.

The bolded bit is untrue, just because an all powerful God could do impossible things, it doesn't mean he has or will ever do those things.

stupid waste of my time, I R ANGRY WIT YOU.

but I forgive you

Bullshit test, the only bullet I took was this one:

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.

The bolded bit is untrue, just because an all powerful God could do impossible things, it doesn't mean he has or will ever do those things.

Yeah, me too, that one is bullshit.

Yeah i got one hit but the problem is with the semantics.

To justify something to myself is not the same as to justify something to society. They use the same word to refer to two different contexts. I think I have done this before.

--edited:
Scrapper got in right before me, but i ave the same problem

Bullshit test, the only bullet I took was this one:

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.

The bolded bit is untrue, just because an all powerful God could do impossible things, it doesn't mean he has or will ever do those things.


Backing up personal beliefs with personal beliefs does not make that wrong
If you believe in a "God" who can do anything, Who the hell are you to say he is not doing this. Just because he chooses not to make you aware of it or remember it, does not mean this all powerfull deiety is not changing the rules, fiddling with physics and redefining things all the time.
Anyway I took 2 hits and got a medal. 0 bullets bitten.

How did you do compared to other people?

* 424708 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
* 45.78% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
* 7.73% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

I bit the same bullet.

The whole idea of "bitten a bullet" is rediculous trash. "Some poeple would dissagree with you!"

Yeah, no ****.

I got the same answers as pretty much anyone else. One bullseye, two bullets in the teeth, over the same ones as Elipson, though I disagree for a slightly different reason to Elipson.

I simply disagree that the notion of God cannot be discussed because it is rife with contradictions- I suggest it requires more discussing due to contradictions.

I got the same answers as pretty much anyone else. One bullseye, two bullets in the teeth, over the same ones as Elipson, though I disagree for a slightly different reason to Elipson.

I simply disagree that the notion of God cannot be discussed because it is rife with contradictions- I suggest it requires more discussing due to contradictions.

Irrational discussion should be left for omniscient beings. There's too many variables to consider that we, as humans, are only capable of completing and growing from rational discussion.

"Is there a god?"
"Planar quadrants!"

Does not mean anything to us, but to a being capable of interacting in irrational and rational thought, it may answer the question.

EDIT: 1 bullet bitten

This was my result


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. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

424911 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit zero bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
45.78% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.73% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.


I don't agree with some of the things though.

But when I saw the title for this thread, I thought it was going to be something like this.

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/i/2002/45/c/b/God_Vs_Devil.jpg