# How consistant are your beliefs?

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:
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.
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:
Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.
A: True
B: False
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:
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.
There is certain proof that evolutionary theory is true, nothing at all, but possibly religions goes against it.

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.
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?

Pengwuino
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:
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:
dgoodpasture2005 said:

What is God?

Oh man i love this quiz. i formatted my comp and couldnt remember what it was called. so i couldnt find it.

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".
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:
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.
You have reached the end!

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

You took 4 direct hits and you have bitten 3 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 319832 people have so far undertaken this activity.
and i died as a christian.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
but when i take the test as if i were a christian.

stereotypes....

Who left these damn penguin droppings here??!!!

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

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

Question 16
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

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.

Zygotic Embryo said:
Question 16
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

What do you think?

dgoodpasture2005 said:
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.

Ditto.

Change is the only true constant.

If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.
Yes. And god is not a she. Why would god have a gender? Unless there are other gods...

Mk said:
Yes. And god is not a she. Why would god have a gender? Unless there are other gods...
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.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
munky99999 said:
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.

This is god as a teenage boy. For symmetry's sake will some female who knows post god as a teenage girl?

arildno
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..

Les Sleeth
Gold Member
quantumcarl said:
Ditto.

Change is the only true constant.

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.

Curious3141
Homework Helper
You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 320655 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.

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.

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.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

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.

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.

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!!!

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]

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.

I was going with the typical (though contradictory) views of God. I, myself, am an atheist. However, by going with the actual defintion of God, it made it seem like my beliefs are contradictory. This is more of a test that reveals how crazy religion is than anything.

munky99999 said:
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.

I'm pretty sure you'de need a gender first before having the desire for "slave girls". You would also have to be kind of insecure in your masculinity :rofl: Anyway, on the topic...

Of course these questions are too much "all or nothing." The answers must be either true or false, but the questions are designed to have a little truth and false mixed in. If you think too critically about the questions you will fail.

Beliefs don't have to always be consistant. Life is not so simple that a blanket belief statement can cover every situation. This is why we need individual feedom to make choices for ourselves.

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.
while you are correct, your not entirely correct.

In the sense of the question, they were making God the reference point. Thusly if u say god needs to be higher standard, evidence for evolution requires less then the scientific standards.

personally i prop everything against harsher standards equally. The difference is that evolution stands up to all standards and god doesnt even qualify for any.

I find the questionnaire idiotic. One is given a choice between two answers to the question: Does God exist? Does nobody read the esoteric literature? This question is based on a extremely bold and unprovable assumption. In mysticism and in quantum mechanics we modify ordinary logic, as modelled by Boolean algebra, such that the tertium non datur is suspended for fundamental questions such as this.

As mathematician George Spencer Brown remarks (Laws of Form, 1969), until we introduce complex values into our metaphysical reasoning we are forced to do it the way it was done in Aristotle's day. If we hadn't done this in physics we'd still be arguing about whether light is particles or waves.

The questions are all worded very strangely, and I think the game makes conclusions that aren't exactly consistent with the questions. But, it was fun nonetheless.