Consistency of Thought Part 1

[pavman]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Curious to see the results, will post mine later... I did this a while back, but thought it might be fun to see results of this forum... :thumbsup:

[Llen]

Although it is unusual for someone to create an online test thread without posting their own results, I will humor pavman and present mine:

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
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 and biting only one bullet 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 because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view 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 bullet.

The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

You suffered 2 direct hits and bit 1 bullet.

[Kotetsu]

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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

I took a hit on the rapist question, but I feel that an answer I gave concerning the justification of one's actions because of an inner conviction wasn't the one I wanted to give (the answers didn't allow me to express my view properly).

[ElstonGunn]

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.

Isn't that kind of like saying that we can't do any math because computers work in binary, so therefore the standard decimal system becomes meaningless*? How can "10" mean both "ten" and "two"?




* I wish I had thought of using this excuse in my high school algebra class. ;)

[stasis]

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 without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that 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. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
Whether or not "most people" find something strange or incredible or unpalatable is not a meaningful critique of the integrity of a line of reasoning. In fact, that's a logical fallacy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).



You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof.
I don't live my entire life by the theory of evolution. In being a theory, it does not purport to be a form of unassailable and immutable truth. Scientific theories are tentative, subject always to falsifiability (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). They describe, not proscribe. In addition, the consequences of the two conclusions are different. The proved existence of a god would be far more socially significant than the theory of evolution, in that a god is a controlling (designing) will that might issue commands to be obeyed whether they are apparently sensical to us or not. Anything that potentially involves suspending my own rational assessment regarding issues in my daily life in favor of a mysterious assessment that I might not understand or agree with at all requires a great deal of evidence. I do not tend to accept the argument from authority (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which means I'm probably not going to tentatively assume god.



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 have no religious convictions. "Disbelief in god" is not a religious conviction and does not require support, as all non-belief follows implicitly in action (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from being unconvinced (or unknowing) of a thing. Moreover, answering in the opposite would have been logically inconsistent with my previous answers about any god being omnipotent and able to design 2 + 2 = 7, or whatever it was.

[Caramel]

Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

And I had the exact same bullets/bites as Stasis:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof.

Not at all. You just asked the question wrong. "Essentially true', because of "overwhelming evidence." Therefor, "really true" when "certain evidence". That applies to everything.

Next to that, evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't claim truth, it claims a possible explanation for done observations. When a observation is made that is inconsistant with the theory, the theory is wrong and adapted / scrapped completely accordingly.

Beliefs don't do that. That is where the foolism is.

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.

If God is omnipotent and can do and know anything, then he/she would be able to create square circles aswell. Otherwise he/she wouldn't be omnipotent. But that doesn't mean he/she is required to so.

He/she created the world with the rules of logic as they are now, so we can only discuss matters restrained by the rules that apply to us here and now.

Otherwise you take us to the 'might be's and 'could be's, which allows you to reason for about anything. Thats absurd.

[Antares]

Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

---

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.

---

Statis & Caramel: We all bit the bullet on the same issues :stunned:

I do not tend to accept the argument from authority, which means I'm probably not going to tentatively assume god.


I didn't notice that until you quoted it. This reminds me: "If everyone else is jumping off the cliff, then I logically should follow suite because if the majority are doing it, it must be right." I love this counter-argument :)

[BlackHawk]

1 direct hit and 1 bitten bullet, earning the TPM medal of distinction

I disagree with their point about God and logic. They say God does not have the power to go against the logic that says 2+2 does not equal 5, and so could not make 2+2 = 5.

I say that "2" "+" "=" and "5" are human definitions. God would be able to have humans redefine their terms to make "2+2=5" a true statement.

[Llen]

1 direct hit and 1 bitten bullet, earning the TPM medal of distinction

I disagree with their point about God and logic. They say God does not have the power to go against the logic that says 2+2 does not equal 5, and so could not make 2+2 = 5.

I say that "2" "+" "=" and "5" are human definitions. God would be able to have humans redefine their terms to make "2+2=5" a true statement.

I agree. I received a direct hit due to that statement. Unfair in my opinion.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

Admittedly, this test is designed to favour atheists. If you believe in god, you will likely have at least some logical inconsistency based on how the test is designed.

But then, that's a lot of the reason why I don't believe.

[Caramel]

Admittedly, this test is designed to favour atheists. If you believe in god, you will likely have at least some logical inconsistency based on how the test is designed.

But then, that's a lot of the reason why I don't believe.

True, but then try to argue their points for fun.

When I pretended to believe in god and answer the quesions accordingly, I still got the same results (award) as when I argued my own points.

Consistent logic = consistent logic ;)

[pavman]

Here's what I got when I took it. Granted, this was about 2.5 years ago.

The game isn't about God, its about consistency of thought :) Anyway, good discussions regardless.

There's one they recommend taking before this one because its more general and less specific.

There are a whole bunch of interesting/unique logic tests on that site, hence why I posted it ;)

Ironically, I tried taking it from an atheist point of view after I posted here and I bit a bullet or got hit....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 285276 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

How did you do compared to other people?

* 285276 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered zero direct hits and bit zero bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
* 7.63% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
* 45.81% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

[Zilal]

That was very interesting... I had 1 bitten bullet and 1 hit, which I knew would be a hit but which I couldn't bring myself to give the "correct" (consistent) answer on. Which is interesting of itself.

I had said it was not justifiable to believe something on internal evidence alone, but then said it was justifiable to believe in God on the basis of internal conviction alone. I got caught up in the meaning of the word "justifiable" and the meaning of God, heh.

Their description of biting the bullet was funny. I suspect a great number of my beliefs would be strange, incredible or unpalatable to the public at large.

[NetJesterAI]

I emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

[Esban]

Some of the questions are writen poorly.
Plus they had a question saying that if God (which they called a she, but this is a minor issue) changed "her" mind and made it so that sin was no longer sin, then the sinnful behavior would no longer be sinnful. While I understand their reasoning, my belief is in a God that does not change. What He has said is sinnful will always be sinnful.

I also believe that their is both evidence that God exist and evidence that God does not exist. The matter is which one does a person trust in, only one is correct dispite evidence for both sides.

Congratulations!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!