does your religous beliefs contradict each other (1 Viewer)

[IFF]

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

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!

 

[pete]

Right. This is complete philosophy student bollocks:

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... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice:

Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful).

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

Absolute bollocks. There is no contradiction. In an earlier question, I also said that "Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything." (and there isn't any such being) so it would obviously be able to do whatever he or she wanted - such as changing moral attitudes on a whim.
Something like Q in Star Trek.

I shall continue.

 

[pete]

Arses to this

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.

I have yet to see *any* proof that some supernatural being called god exists, yet we are surrounded with documented proof of evolution.

This is stupid.

 

[pete]

this too - bollocks:

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.

If this God bloke made the universe out of nothing, then surely it's safe to assume that he'd have the power to change the rules.

Apparently my insistence on being rational about the god question is now reason to tell me i'm irrational.


this is starting to annoy me

 

[silo]

it annoyed me too. but, eh, it's a computer program. it doesn't really deal in implicit assumptions and undefined terms and the like. back to work...

Originally posted by pete
this is starting to annoy me

 

[pete]

a computer program whose rules were set down by a dickhead

 

[nine]

can we move this to the "god" board?

can we have a god board?i hate god.viva la evolucion

 

[kstop]

Originally posted by pete

This is stupid.

Not so, because you do claim that A is true but doesn't need absolute proof, but B requires absolute proof in order to be true. Therefore B requires a higher standard of proof than A. You could try arguing that as a potentially concrete entity, God does require a higher standard of proof than evolution. There's no actual physical thing that you can point to and call evolution, it's a theory for explaining certain interactions between physical things, and is real when applied to the development of life, but not real when applied to, say, a tennis ball bouncing off a wall. By contrast, God either exists or doesn't, and is unaffected by interactions between other physical things either way.