Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How consistant are your beliefs?

  1. Apr 22, 2006 #1

    Mk

    User Avatar

    http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi
    This may have gone around several times already here, but I found it very interesting.

    Very nice, however,

    It doesn't give me enough choices, and it gave me this:
    But it seems to be a bit too close-minded.

    I 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. AND I DO NOT REJECT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, it is fact.

    The question was:
    I chose false because evolutionary theory is never false even in some matters of detail. Jeez, maybe it wanted me to pick true.

    After I go further, after choosing true, it gives me this crap:
    There is certain proof that evolutionary theory is true, nothing at all, but possibly religions goes against it.

    Which is why I do not have any religious convictions.

    Do I have any inconsistency? Or am I just trying not to, even though I have?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 22, 2006 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    God is a woman?

    I took 1 hit, 1 bullets. Thankfully both were on choices i was like "ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... this is a thin line to be walking and im baaaaarely picking this one".
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2006
  4. Apr 22, 2006 #3
    You are your own God. I think consistent beliefs are shockingly dentrimental to the growth of individual spirituality and intellect. Consistency in beliefs leads to static knowledge. Explore your life and let living be an intellectually stimulating adventure.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2006
  5. Apr 22, 2006 #4
    What is God?
     
  6. Apr 22, 2006 #5
    Oh man i love this quiz. i formatted my comp and couldnt remember what it was called. so i couldnt find it.

    ya thats one thing i find neat about it. Even women generally use him for God. simply because its said that God is non-corporeal. and if your barely choosing an answer. your probably trying to stay consistent rather then describe your beliefs.

    and of coarse as an atheist.
    Code (Text):
    You have reached the end!

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

    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. 319830 people have so far undertaken this activity.
    but when i take the test as if i were a christian.
    and i died as a christian.
     
  7. Apr 22, 2006 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    stereotypes....
     
  8. Apr 24, 2006 #7

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Who left these damn penguin droppings here??!!!
     
  9. Apr 24, 2006 #8
    Kinda presumptious, but I guess that's what you should expect. I got hit with:

    --------

    "As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality."

    "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."

    I answered true to both, which is supposedly a contradiction-- but the reality is that the Loch Ness monster, by definition, is a matter of physical study. A rational proof requires tangible evidence, and a resounding lack thereof provides rational reason to disbelieve a given theory. God's a different story. God is a matter of faith whether you believe in Him or believe in "NOT God". No evidence exists nor could exist, provided the "traditional" definitions of God; therefore it's faith.

    --------

    I also got hit with:

    "It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions."

    "The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions."

    I answered "false", then "true", because I was under the impression of:
    A) moral justifiability versus physical justifiability-- IE "abortion is wrong" versus "evolution is wrong".
    B) the former implies a quite explicit disregard for external evidence, which the latter does not have. In the light of explicit evidence which contradicts your conclusions, you *must* alter your conclusions, or accept them as partially inaccurate. The latter case makes no mention of external evidence.

    -------------

    And my 3rd, final hit from:

    "It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists."

    I answered "False", because, again, there's a specifically stated disregard for external evidence, which could logically be in disharmony with the belief in God, making it unjustifiable to have such a belief. Never mind that I don't think "external evidence" is relevant in this case, making the question utterly meaningless.

    DaveE
     
  10. Apr 24, 2006 #9
    Question 16
    If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.


    that one almost had me


    but


    You have reached the end!

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

    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. 320088 people have so far undertaken this activity.

    Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.
     
  11. Apr 24, 2006 #10
    What do you think?
     
  12. Apr 24, 2006 #11
    Ditto.

    Change is the only true constant.
     
  13. May 1, 2006 #12

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Yes. And god is not a she. Why would god have a gender? Unless there are other gods...
     
  14. May 6, 2006 #13
    Say you goto sleep and wake up and you ARE god. and such.

    You do your stuff. Wouldn't you make some slave girls or something? I'd think u'd need a gender then.
     
  15. May 6, 2006 #14

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    This is god as a teenage boy. For symmetry's sake will some female who knows post god as a teenage girl?
     
  16. May 6, 2006 #15

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Caveat:
    This is god as a STRAIGHT teenage boy.








    But we all know that god made man in His image..
     
  17. May 6, 2006 #16

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No way. Change requires a foundation that holds steady supporting change. Constant change isn't true constancy. Something that cannot lose essentialness is even when in change fits the bill.
     
  18. May 7, 2006 #17

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    The bullet biting was because I stated that I would require evidence for god to be held to a higher standard than evidence for evolution. I stand by that, my basis being that the more incredible or fantastic the assertion, the greater the weight of evidence needed. God is a pretty fantastic, outlandish hypothesis, IMHO.
     
  19. May 20, 2006 #18
    Would an agnostic (as oppose to a believer in god or an atheist) find it easier to answers these questions without any contradictions to their beliefs? I took one direct hit and bit one bullet because i believe in god and I think swayed more toward the agnostic side when answering the questions.
     
  20. Jun 2, 2006 #19
    You have reached the end!

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

    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. 323868 people have so far undertaken this activity.

    Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.




    YAY!!!
     
  21. Jun 14, 2006 #20
    Problems I have. In question 7, to whom is it justifiable?

    Question 9, by what standard are people innocent. A christian would believe that all are not innocent, and so the question is false. What defines innocent?


    [qoute]
    Analysis of your Bitten Bullets


    Bitten Bullet 1

    You answered "True" to questions 1, 4 and 11, and also "True" to one or more of questions 3, 5 or 8.

    These answers generated the following response:

    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. 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?


    ****************

    Bitten Bullet 2

    You answered "False" to Questions 10 and "True" to Question 14.

    These answers generated the following response:

    You've just bitten a bullet! You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

    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?


    ****************

    Bitten Bullet 3

    You answered "True" to Question 16.

    This answer generated the following response:

    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.
    [/quote]
    Bullet 1. God did not create a world of suffering, but a world where man could choose to suffer (aka forbidden fruit). But in a world where there is suffering, God will make it non meaningless by giving it a greater good.

    Bullet 2. I said that based on the lack of evidence of non-existance, Nessie could not exist. But I have watched enough documentaries to see that Nessie does not exist. So the subject of the question needs to be changed. And, inteligent life can live of Mars, just no inteligent life based on water (which would be frozen). If we get to mars, or take a picture (a big one of the entire surface) of it, we can say that we have evidence that aliens do not exist on the surface, or that they are so intelligent they can be completely camoflaged.

    Bullet 3. God can do anything, but has set limits on Himself. Rational discussions are not imposible, but have to be opened to the fact that they take place in a place of both natureal and supernatural events. Now, to take this to the Christian forums, and see what they get.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?