(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Battleground God is a multi-question “test” which looks for logical inconsistencies related to religious belief. It does not make a claim for or against religion, it just looks at your logic.
Anyway I took the quiz and here are my results:
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took zero direct hits and you bit 2 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 300985 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.
following the link I am told:
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 very few bullets 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 bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
So what were the bullets I bit? Bitten Bullet 1:
You answered “True” to questions 6 and 13. These answers generated the following response:
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: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
You chose to bite the bullet.
I stand by my logic too. Evolutionary theory is widely accepted across many disciplines, countries, languages, religions, etc. Claims are made and tested, upheld or refuted, and the science progresses.
Saying “I believe in God” puts the burden of evidence on the person making the claim and there is just about as much evidence - actual evidence - testable evidence - for a God as there is for a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The “bite the bullet logic” is a little specious too:
1) You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true - YES
2) You accept evolutionary theory without certain proof - Well no, there is a LOT of proof. Not all the details of the mechanism have been filled in but nobody in the scientific community is challenging evolutions reality.
3) You require certain, irrevocable proof for God’s existence - Well, Yes. Something, Anything.
4) You claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. - Yes. Evolution can been seen, tested, refuted and retested across many disciplines and it has (excuse the pun) evolved over the years. It gets a pretty good pass from me. Now to claim there is an almighty being - where’s some evidence? (I know - FAITH, right?)
This “bullet bite” seems a little contrived, but nonetheless I stand by my answer.
On to Bitten Bullet 2
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.
Ok, this one I had to think about. It’s the old “If God can do anything can he make a mountain he can’t move” argument. What I was answering was - If God is Omnipotent then the laws of space and time don’t apply to him or at least not as we understand those laws. In other words - I was answering like a believer and I got dinged for it.
So what do you think? Give the “test” a whir and share your comments. I’d love to hear about your experience, the bullets you bite or hits you take and why.
It was nice to know though that all-in-all, my reasoning was solid.
digg this story
