Battlefield God..

[MJ-12]

Ia

[kakkarot]

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

[astralspinner]

quote:Oh and BTW, you do realize that existence from nonexistence is logically impossible don't you?

I once read a highly interesting theory that states that the amount of actual energy in the universe is actually countered by the potential energy (or whatever the term is) it would take to overcome gravity and the like - therefore the sum total of energy within the universe is actually zero. So technically, no violation of the laws of thermodynamics occured when the universe came into existence.

quote: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.

All anyone can ever do is think they are correct - what would you prefer them to do? Claim absolute certainty?
But certainly I agree you should never take anyone's beliefs just because they think they're right. Everyone in the world thinks they're right..

quote:and that there is no evidence which falsifies it". and this statement is just flat out wrong.

No it isn't - to falsify evolution, you need to prove it hasn't ever happened. That means that you have to have evidence that says "evolution didn't happen", and provides an alternative means of life existing on Earth, all the fossils, all the DNA progressions, etc etc. No such evidence exists.

quote: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

Evolution was first put forward by Darwin, who first came up with it after studying the birds on different islands. I have never heard of this skull you mention. And I studied evolution at university..

quote: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).

Even if this did happen, it makes no difference. In the same way, some anti-evolutionists claim that Darwin himself recanted his belief in evolution on his deathbed. Even if he did, it makes no difference at all to the validity of theory - it doesn't matter that if some evidence is false, or if somebody stopped believing in it. What matters is what all the evidence shows, and what the scientific community as a whole believes.

quote: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?

No.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Interesting, yet not truly useful, at least spiritually...and they don't claim it is.  I got "bit" twice and logically it made sense why.  Thanks for the link.

[MJ-12]

bs

[kakkarot]

good points astralspinner.

"No it isn't - to falsify evolution, you need to prove it hasn't ever happened". i guess i am walking a thin line here between the idea of evolution and the Theory of Evolution. the idea of people changing over time is real, but the Theory of Evolution which believes that humans evolved from apes, etc is false.

The earliest human bones that have been found belonged to a group of humanoids that weren't like us in any way. they lived for a while and then a new group of humanoids just suddenly appeared (archeaology has no found no evidence as to how this second group came into existance). the first group died out, the second group lived on to become us.

so perhaps the first group of humans evolved from apes (i don't recall), but the second group did not evolve from the first group, as far as archeaologists can determine. therefore the Theory of Evolution is broken even though the idea of evolution is not.

~kakkarot

[astralspinner]

quote:so perhaps the first group of humans evolved from apes (i don't recall), but the second group did not evolve from the first group, as far as archeaologists can determine. therefore the Theory of Evolution is broken even though the idea of evolution is not.

Archaeologically, you may be right (Fossil studies aren't my specialty)
But it's not just fossils that point to evolution - how does your view square with the fact that 99% of our genes are identical to apes, if we aren't evolutionarily connected?

[kakkarot]

98%, and that's no big deal. we also share similar genes to other creatures (though i can't for the life of me recall any examples right now). 2% is more than enough for us to be completely different from them, especially since there are a few varieties of monkey species which have more than a 2% deviance from their "brother" species.

~kakkarot

[BDHugh]

Hi AS, are you going to post this on the AR forums when it comes back online too? Oh and, I'm curious about the energy theory you stated. Do you know who came up with it?

[astralspinner]

An online test of how consitent your beliefs are:

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

I got a perfect score