|
kakkarot
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2003, 01:56:11 » |
|
ok, i guess i'll give them some bullets back too (i took one direct hit and bit three bullets).
the direct hit:
=====
Analysis of your Direct Hit
Click here if you want to see a complete listing of the questions that you answered.
Direct Hit 1
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not 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 now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!
=====
question 7 and 17 follow:
=====
Question 7
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.
Question 17
It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists.
=====
by this question, i believe that it is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm inner conviction that God exists, UNLESS THERE IS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE PROVING THAT HE DOESN'T.
in question 7, however, it talks about FACTUAL EVIDENCE that has been proven and i think that it is neccessary that proven factual evidence should be followed above and beyond any inner conviction regardless of its strength.
first bitten bullet:
=====
Analysis of your Bitten Bullets
Click here if you want to see a complete listing of the questions that you answered.
Bitten Bullet 1
You answered "False" to questions 6 and 7.
These answers generated the following response:
You're under fire! 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. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say. (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to bite the bullet.
=====
"But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth" think? that's the best they can do? is THINK?!?! i don't buy other people's beliefs just because they THINK they are correct.
"and that there is no evidence which falsifies it". and this statement is just flat out wrong. there have been many tests that have given evidence which produce lots of doubt towards the theory of evolution. for instance, the first "skull" that was "found" that supposedly was the cornerstone for the basis of the Theory (theory, heh. not law) of Evolution, was later found to be comprised of many different skulls pieced together by the guy who found them (in fact that "skull" still isn't complete, there are pieces missing from it). and did anyone else hear about the incident with carbon dating where they carbon-dated a living pig's tooth and it came out to be a few million years old? [B)]. oooh, someone bit that bullet, and it ain't me.
the second bullet i still choose to take, and here's why:
=====
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?
=====
absence of evidence proves only that we don't know the answer yet.
and the third and final bullet:
=====
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.
=====
ah yes, the infamous "if you think that God can do everything then it means that He HAS to do everything" fallacy. just because God CAN rewrite reality as we know it, without us even knowing it, doesn't mean He WILL.
so there's my response to them, though it is a fairly decent test.
~kakkarot
|
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM