Battleground God

[Acriku]

Did you find out if the gamemaker is atheist? If not, you have nothing to go on but crying like a baby.

[SurlyPIG]

Well it just seems silly to me that an all-powerful being does not transcend gender attributes. And even if it were just downplaying itself in the eyes of man so that they could understand, it was essentially just playing into the sexist ideals of men at that time, and isn't that a little backwards?

[Caid Ivik]

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

Jhvh is an acronym of "HE, who is". Other name 'El is also "Lord", masculinum. We use "He", because He show more times Himself as Father (by trinitar logic Father, Son and Holy Spirit), who protects us, creates us etc., more patriarchal thing. But it is true, He is a specified unreproductive being, so talking about His gender is a nonsense.

[sneezer3]

I've taken that test before, It DID help me define what i believe a little better. But it had a few things that i feel is more towards the athiest's side.

Question ten asks you if you believe it is logical to believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Which no strong or hard evidence has been presented. But to say that conterdicts with disagreeing that it is logical not to believe in the Loch Ness monster is to imply that there is no more evidence for God than the Loch Ness monster. Which is a false claim. I feel there has been hard evidence presented.

Another Problem

"If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72."

This is assumeing of course that the science isn't a little beyond us right now. Like if someone was 100%flat and din't understand how there could be another direction. To say something like that is to imply it is llogical to believe some things could be a little beyond us right now. In Genesis chapter one God made light itself. How? I have no clue, but to say it is llogical has no science basis. It is llogical in itself. If God can write up all of the laws of the universe then that claim is bogus. To deny the claim would not be to deny science. But to deny there isn't a principle that says principles can to changed but only God can do it.

[Acriku]

No hard evidence has arisen. Nothing except for myth stories, and fake videos. It's been done over way too many times. They've searched the lake over and over with topnotch equipment, nothing is found.

But enough of Nessie.

This is assumeing of course that the science isn't a little beyond us right now. Like if someone was 100%flat and din't understand how there could be another direction. To say something like that is to imply it is llogical to believe some things could be a little beyond us right now. In Genesis chapter one God made light itself. How? I have no clue, but to say it is llogical has no science basis. It is llogical in itself. If God can write up all of the laws of the universe then that claim is bogus. To deny the claim would not be to deny science. But to deny there isn't a principle that says principles can to changed but only God can do it.

Those examples are logically contradictory by definition, not at all beyond our knowledge.

[sneezer3]

No hard evidence has arisen. Nothing except for myth stories, and fake videos. It's been done over way too many times. They've searched the lake over and over with topnotch equipment, nothing is found.

But enough of Nessie.

I never said that did. I was reffering to evidence of God. (sorry if i din't put it out there clear as day.)

Those examples are logically contradictory by definition, not at all beyond our knowledge.

then you'l have to explan to to me how.

Let me put it this way. If someone wrote up some a program(just assumeing for the sake of argument) that allowed a group of programs to move and talk within something that looked like a planet. They added laws to make stuff do things. Useing your logic it would be like those progams saying "It is logically impossable for our laws to be edited. For Light to look any brighter then it already does."

The Problem is we are working with Finite minds and restricted to the laws of this universe.

Make since? :)

[Caid Ivik]

Isn't it what the Snake has said to Eva on the first days? "You will be like God." We've eaten the fruit, opened our minds, only to turn over everything...

[Acriku]

No hard evidence has arisen. Nothing except for myth stories, and fake videos. It's been done over way too many times. They've searched the lake over and over with topnotch equipment, nothing is found.

But enough of Nessie.

I never said that did. I was reffering to evidence of God. (sorry if i din't put it out there clear as day.)

Those examples are logically contradictory by definition, not at all beyond our knowledge.

then you'l have to explan to to me how.

Let me put it this way. If someone wrote up some a program(just assumeing for the sake of argument) that allowed a group of programs to move and talk within something that looked like a planet. They added laws to make stuff do things. Useing your logic it would be like those progams saying "It is logically impossable for our laws to be edited. For Light to look any brighter then it already does."

The Problem is we are working with Finite minds and restricted to the laws of this universe.

Make since? :)

Woah, if you have this conclusive evidence for your god by all means show me!

A square circle is impossible because a circle has attributes which make it impossible to be a square circle. A circle has no faces, or corners, or edges. A square must have these. Put them together into a square circle is logically impossible.

[Caid Ivik]

Circle made of squares is possible. Easily seen on low-resolution monitors. There is nothing perfectly curved. Other solution should be circle named Square or square named Circle. Names were given by humans, not God. And third, last year I saw a photo in National Geographic, where sun looks like a square...

[Acriku]

Oh my lord Caid, you are not addressing the issue. Square circles are impossible. It can't be both at the same time. A square has even edges and faces all around. A circle has none. Is that so hard to understand?

[TMA_1]

relax acriku, your flying off the handle a bit.

[Edric O]

Oh my, it looks like we're running out of fence posts FAST... :)

Anyway, this was a great test! The only thing I didn't like was that some questions didn't give you proper choices (i.e. If you think that part of the statement is true and part of it is false). But in the end, I managed to emerge with 0 hits and 0 bitten bullets! Yay! :)

[sneezer3]

I noticed it did seem to be more on the offence towards a thiest. Could be the maker was an athiest. I played and claimed to be an athiest to see the results the only major thing i saw is belw. you could bite the bullet and still not take any damege.

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:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

[Acriku]

I got the same bullet bite sneezer ;) And it does do damage, but not as much as a direct hit.

And it may be of consequence on the offense towards a theist because it deals with rationality and logic, hmm?

[sneezer3]

I got the same bullet bite sneezer ;) And it does do damage, but not as much as a direct hit.

Don't it do half the damege? (just wondering.)

And it may be of consequence on the offense towards a theist because it deals with rationality and logic, hmm?

I think maybe its because it would have to be more direct towards an athiests beliefs instede of just asking questions about God. Like to what extent they believe it is foolish to believe in God and so on. For the next thing the maker was an athiest and its kinda hard to see questions agienst your on bunch without haveing heard them. But it would be a nice addition to look for conterdictions in the test.

Btw i tryed it and picked "I don't know" for rather or not God exists. The max hits i've been able to take are 3 bullet bites and 2 direct hits. :)

[Acriku]

The test demolishes both theist and atheist alike. It is only looking for logical consistency.

[sneezer3]

I like this in the FAQ!

9. How dare you call God "she".

Errr. Sorry!