Battleground God

[Acriku]

This is an interesting game that I would like you all to take part in. It is a series of questions conscerning God (open to interpretation of which god), and sees if your beliefs remain logically consistent. If you reach a logical inconsistency with a previous answer you gave, you will take a direct hit of a bullet and will be explained why you took a direct hit. You must bite a bullet (less damage) if your choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. Can you make it through alive?

It is not a trap for theists, or for atheists, and you can read more about complaints at their FAQ.

Ready for the game? I thought so!

Go here to learn about the game that may clear up some questions you have about it, or if you are too eager to take the game, go here.

Enjoy :)

[Egeides]

Very nice game!

There's a problem on definitions though... For exemple:

1- I said that God was free to stop suffering and wanted to do so, but not that he thaught he should do so.

2- I also said that we could BELIEVE (not KNOW) that the Lock Ness monster didn't exist if no evidence was found with lot of researches.

Perhaps it's addressed in the FAQ, but I don't wanna read it ;D

Anyway, it makes the test, largely based on logic, a bit unstable in its conclusions. Would have been nice if simple definitions would have been given of certain words/concepts.

Results: I took 3 hits I disagree with, 0 bullets.

[Acriku]

Was that a contradiction, because they seem to be unrelated? I bit two bullets and no direct hits, which got me the Medal of Distinction (second highest), woo ;)

[Egeides]

It was only a question of definitions...

I do not define "knowing" and "believing" as same. My definition of freedom is perhaps different than theirs: I do not believe that God wants bad things, and believe he could act so they wouldn't happen, but wont do so since it wouldn't be a good thing. Stuff like this...

[Acriku]

It says "If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist." With emphasis on it is rational.

[Egeides]

Yes, I think it is rational to believe but not to know that there's no Nessie. Believing and knowing is very different to me.

[Acriku]

Where does it say know? I'm confused as to what you are getting at.

[Apollyon]

I bit 1 bullet when I said it was ok to torture innocent people and took a hit that they got wrong because they wrote "should" but the answer suggested "must".

[nemafakei]

Nice!

"You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity."

...

"

111276 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 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.

7.52% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

46.76% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction. "

[Acriku]

Watch out for the big man on campus ;)

[Dude_Doc]

Okay. I've made the test and nothing changed. But, I have some issues to discuss here:

You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering.

First, I never claimed "God wanted". It's difficult to explain. I think it is like this: We humans have created so much evil, so when justice comes, it comes in a form of a horrible virus. This have, of course, something to do with a higher purpose. On the other side, God may have created a world where everyone is free. By that I mean that everything we do is without any fate, or higher purpose. This means that people who dies in horrible plaegues dies in a way that is horrible, because that is the nature of the virus, like it is our nature to be "the masters" of this planet.

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin...

I didn't really understand this one. God is almighty. He can do whatever pleases Him. If He wants that everything bad was turned into good, then it becomes so and we can't do a thing about it. Remember: When Adam and Eve did wrong in Eden, we were all punished: the hard and suffering life. Now live it.

[Acriku]

Of course, with a True or False question, there are going to be disagreements.

And when you submit true, you basically claim it.

As to your specific qualms, I can't really comment on it since I do not know what you said true or false to - can you give me a list?

[SurlyPIG]

Nice game! I took 0 hits and 1 bullet I think was about the operational definition of what any being called God is limited to.

[Digital Guerrilla]

I had the same results Nema had but it said I received the Metal of Honor. I wonder why the difference in metals.

[Caid Ivik]

To agree with that I would lost all my reputation here if I won't try this and of course not comment it, so let's do what is my dreadful cause:

1. God exists; what kind of weird statement is this? Such primitive generalising, that's for philosophical noobs. If we use "false", then whole test is irelevant...

2. ...for example the very next question.

3. Now we see: God must or mustn't do anything. This is the only thing where I would put "I don't know" answer, weird that only here it isn't present. How can I know what does creator mean with "anything"? At least we have "Please select...".

4. *proceed to comment 5*

5. Why this question is after the 3rd and 4th? First we talk about what should God do with his omnipotence and THEN we ask whether he IS omnipotent?

6. Which details does the creator mean? I think there is a very big difference if we talk about "details" concerning the beginning.

OK, full health now ;D

7. And why do we need to justify our believe? It isn't thing of justice, so the question is told without a sense.

8. WHERE is WHAT to know? Again, please return to comment 5...

9. Again, lack of "don't know" statement, or at least putting it to some more precision. Torturing is a sin for the actor, who hurts the victim, but itself can be on higher purpose. Like holocaust brought Jews finally own state. But not every time it has such result, so this is confusing.

10. What the hell does this mean? Existence of uninfluental, unworshipped, laughable animal isn't thing we ask for...

11. We are unable to choose the way of our death. Anyway, we don't die for higher purpose, we live for it.

12. She? Is this word ment for God, our believe or some creator's girl? Again, question without a sense.

Still alive, standing with full power against the dread legion! ;D

13. This is individual, because something may sound as undoubtable truth for one and a weak twist of mind for another. As well as foolish can be even believing when we have a clue: then we have to KNOW not only believe. I wouldn't start again the things of deism, which can blur this question more, I will spare my energy.

14. Bah, I would never say there is a person, which will say "I believe there is no God!". It is like in Chapter XXII, where Yossarian and Mrs Scheisskopf argue about characteristics of God in which they don't believe...

15. And now the goal: such thing was many times presented by Acriku here ("God commandeth: Kill thy mother" and such), and every times laughed out. I laugh at it still. Don't think I will fall to trap.

16. Counting and geometry were creating by Him. If He would make a world with another physical characteristics, the words like "1", "circle", "=" etc., would be unusable. So, let's remain in "Please select...".

17. What does the creator expect from founding the question again? See comment 7. I've really thought the end would be with more grace, not just pathetical waiting for confusion. It is hard to talk about logic created by higher being with just plain computer logic, which is in fact created by puny humans...

[Dude_Doc]

As to your specific qualms, I can't really comment on it since I do not know what you said true or false to - can you give me a list?

Well, I don't recall the questions exactly, anyways:

You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases.

The question was somehing like "People who die horribly dies so because there is a higher purpose". Now, this is a fate-question. What I meant was that either God created a destiny (answer: true), or He gave us free will, as well as any other living organisms, to produce and live like we want to (answer: false). You see, the majority of the human race don't think eating animals is wrong. A virus doesn't think it is wrong to infect and kill its host, in a matter of fact, it is its nature to do so.

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin...

The statement was something like "God can make everything good into bad, and all bad into good, if He wanted to." This is a dead-end. If I would say "False", then I would deny that God is almighty, and that He can't do everything, which I stated before. So, the logical answer is "True". It doesn't matter what He wants, He is still almighty.

[Acriku]

I see some of us can't play a simple game without having a fencepost up their...well, you figure it out.

Dude_doc, this is a game of rational consistency. It is also a game where you shouldn't think too much into it. I had an atheist friend take it and he did horrible, because he thought too much into it. He died ;)

[Dude_Doc]

OMG! *Thinking of that scary dream Davidu had...*

[Caid Ivik]

Acriku, don't be a hypocrite and say truth. You are disappointed by it ;)

[TMA_1]

I have a feeling that this wasent written by theists, and I lvoe the constant use of God as a she. That itself is illogical because God does not carry gender, if GOd did then God would limit itself to a material manifestation, and I recieved two warning signs, and they said "though you were not illogical, think about this blah blah. Just a tad bit biased? it is for christians that dont know what they are talking about, that have simple faith. And not only that, the test expresses that reason is a constant. Reason is not a constant since there is no known constant in this universe, and tht our reason is suspect to our senses which are imperfect. it is not a test, it is a trap, and a silly one at that.

[SurlyPIG]

If that is true then why is God constantly referred to as a He? Would it not be more appropreate to call God 'It'?

[Acriku]

I see two fenceposts missing from the fed2k fence....

Go and e-mail them why they call God a she, don't cry in here. I'm not the maker.

[TMA_1]

well in many religions of a transcendant God, the idea of calling God a he, refers to the fact that He or the male gender is usually the stronger one. (old fashioned and sexist, but that is the way they viewed it.) still though in the bible God is mentioned several times in feminine gender. shocking isnt it? ;)

[SurlyPIG]

Old fashioned and sexist...tell me, does that sound like any supreme being would/should be like? And I'll believe that the bible mentions God as a female when I see it...

And given that, if it is true, why is it then so absurd that they mentioned God as a female, if, like you said, it is in the Bible too?

[TMA_1]

you are speaking from your own generation, and who says its wrong to use the male as a masculine? it is done all the time even now. I see nothing wrong with being old fashioned there.

It is a standard tool that athiests use to "bother xtians". You are smart enough to know about that. think outside the box man.