![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Battleground God...
Sep. 28th, 2003 08:53 pmWow, this is really interesting! Unfortunately, I think I took more damage than I should have. Here are my points of contention-- and the logic that supports my decision!
[LJ-CUT text="Ouch..."]
You're under fire!
You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice:
Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.
Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
Needless to say, I bit the bullet on that one. Didn't affect my health any-- which it shouldn't, darn it!
Question 11
People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.
My answer: True. I really don't like the way they word this question, as it has the potentiallity to really skew someones answer-- as we soon see.
You've just bitten a bullet!
Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose.
Well, just because people cannot accept what I have just accepted doesn't mean I'm in the logistical wrong, so to speak. And, correction-- He didn't create the world in a way where pain, suffering, and death, is required. That's Evolution's tale. God created a perfect world, and we screwed it up. And continue to screw it up. So, hardly fair to claim that it's okay under one auspice (evolution) but not under another (Creation)-- but that's probably because it would be our fault in the latter.
There is no logical contradiction in your position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?
Oh, and telling them that their suffering is completely for naught, and it doesn't matter anyway because their genetic/lucky lottery just happened to fail them? I mean, that's what Evolution would say. Sorry, you're a genetic dead-end. No consolation prize, either. Aaaand, God doesn't want His creation to suffer. Aaaaaaaand, He gives us the ultimate way out-- through Him, into Heaven. So, whatever suffering we happen to go through in this world will be nothing compared to an eternity of joy. I could go on in more detail, but it would take more theological and philosophical work than I have the mental capacity for at the moment.
No fair, since I took slight damage on that one.
Question 12
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.
My answer: False-- however, only if we're talking about my God, the God of the Bible.
You've just taken a direct hit!
You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist.
And I stand by that claim!
But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.
I would argue that this goes against the very nature of God, and all He stands for. If the Bible says that God is perfect, just, loving, and a God of Order-- not chaos-- (among other things) then He would not make murdering good and worshipping bad. That would go against His nature, and therefore be a contradiction-- something that could not happen if He was perfect.
Question 13
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
Oh, that is such a loaded question. It depends on what proof one is willing to accept.
Question 16
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.
Another tricky one. I really don't like the question-- there's really no logical answer when you consider reality. It's just a big 'What If' question meant to trip you up.
You've just taken a direct hit!
You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
Again, I stand by the observation that God is a God of order and logic-- not chaos. While He certainly would be able to create a universe and have it function under those principles-- that is not how He chose to do it. Entertaining the idea of God creating illogical circumstances--as far as we can see it--goes against logic itself. This quiz is full of anti-Christian umbrella statements. ;p
In short, I survived with the TPM service medal.
"You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred where your answers implied logical contradictions. You did bite a number of bullets. These 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 hits and bitten bullets.
The fact that you did not suffer many hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!"
So, yeah. While it's a very interesting quiz, it's too heavily biased against those who actually believe in the God of the Bible for my liking. One of the stats was that "46.71% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction." I'd be willing to bet money that most of those people are atheist.
[LJ-CUT text="Ouch..."]
You're under fire!
You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice:
Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.
Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
Needless to say, I bit the bullet on that one. Didn't affect my health any-- which it shouldn't, darn it!
Question 11
People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.
My answer: True. I really don't like the way they word this question, as it has the potentiallity to really skew someones answer-- as we soon see.
You've just bitten a bullet!
Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose.
Well, just because people cannot accept what I have just accepted doesn't mean I'm in the logistical wrong, so to speak. And, correction-- He didn't create the world in a way where pain, suffering, and death, is required. That's Evolution's tale. God created a perfect world, and we screwed it up. And continue to screw it up. So, hardly fair to claim that it's okay under one auspice (evolution) but not under another (Creation)-- but that's probably because it would be our fault in the latter.
There is no logical contradiction in your position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?
Oh, and telling them that their suffering is completely for naught, and it doesn't matter anyway because their genetic/lucky lottery just happened to fail them? I mean, that's what Evolution would say. Sorry, you're a genetic dead-end. No consolation prize, either. Aaaand, God doesn't want His creation to suffer. Aaaaaaaand, He gives us the ultimate way out-- through Him, into Heaven. So, whatever suffering we happen to go through in this world will be nothing compared to an eternity of joy. I could go on in more detail, but it would take more theological and philosophical work than I have the mental capacity for at the moment.
No fair, since I took slight damage on that one.
Question 12
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.
My answer: False-- however, only if we're talking about my God, the God of the Bible.
You've just taken a direct hit!
You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist.
And I stand by that claim!
But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.
I would argue that this goes against the very nature of God, and all He stands for. If the Bible says that God is perfect, just, loving, and a God of Order-- not chaos-- (among other things) then He would not make murdering good and worshipping bad. That would go against His nature, and therefore be a contradiction-- something that could not happen if He was perfect.
Question 13
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
Oh, that is such a loaded question. It depends on what proof one is willing to accept.
Question 16
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.
Another tricky one. I really don't like the question-- there's really no logical answer when you consider reality. It's just a big 'What If' question meant to trip you up.
You've just taken a direct hit!
You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
Again, I stand by the observation that God is a God of order and logic-- not chaos. While He certainly would be able to create a universe and have it function under those principles-- that is not how He chose to do it. Entertaining the idea of God creating illogical circumstances--as far as we can see it--goes against logic itself. This quiz is full of anti-Christian umbrella statements. ;p
In short, I survived with the TPM service medal.
"You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred where your answers implied logical contradictions. You did bite a number of bullets. These 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 hits and bitten bullets.
The fact that you did not suffer many hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!"
So, yeah. While it's a very interesting quiz, it's too heavily biased against those who actually believe in the God of the Bible for my liking. One of the stats was that "46.71% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction." I'd be willing to bet money that most of those people are atheist.
