Logic Game -Battleground God

[310Rduner]

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

This game is pretty cool. I got through biting only 1 bullet. The bullet was that I believe extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Which I still believe is true.
Let's see how rationally consistent you folks are:cool:

[lil400exman]

i took so far one bullet about people who die extra painful diseases or death. i said it is false they die for a higher purpose. it said you are wrong but i am not since the ruler of the world right now is satan. god does not want a good/innocent person to be hurt for somehting they have no control over. satan the devil does that not god. so there is a little prograaming glitch!:)

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by lil400exman
i took so far one bullet about people who die extra painful diseases or death. i said it is false they die for a higher purpose. it said you are wrong but i am not since the ruler of the world right now is satan. god does not want a good/innocent person to be hurt for somehting they have no control over. satan the devil does that not god. so there is a little prograaming glitch!:)

......:huh

The god as described in the bible lends itself to the fact that there is no way this could be the case. I'm sorry, but the god of the bible would not loose. You have an error in the premises of your belief, sorry bud;)

[lil400exman]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
......:huh

The god as described in the bible lends itself to the fact that there is no way this could be the case. I'm sorry, but the god of the bible would not loose. You have an error in the premises of your belief, sorry bud;)
no god hurled satan down to earth to show that he cant rule humans without god. its not god (jehovah) fault for the war etc today........god will come in when satans rule is over and take control of the earth again and send it back to perfection.........i can show you this in the scriptures if you want.

[wilkin250r]

No, look at the story of Job. Satan can not do anything without God's permission.

[wilkin250r]

And personally, I think the game is interesting, but the analysis is ridiculous.

For example, I said that it is justified to base your beliefs on a firm, inner conviction. And subsequently, the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified to believe he was carrying out the will of God as he murdered prostitutes.

Yeah, he believed he was doing the work of God, why did I have to bite the bullet on that? He can believe he's an orange popsicle, too, but that doesn't mean he is one. Just because his views are a little skewed doesn't mean my beliefs are contradictory...

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
And personally, I think the game is interesting, but the analysis is ridiculous.

For example, I said that it is justified to base your beliefs on a firm, inner conviction. And subsequently, the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified to believe he was carrying out the will of God as he murdered prostitutes.

Yeah, he believed he was doing the work of God, why did I have to bite the bullet on that? He can believe he's an orange popsicle, too, but that doesn't mean he is one. Just because his views are a little skewed doesn't mean my beliefs are contradictory...

The reason you bit the bullet was because of the line :"ignoring irrevocable proof, either for or against". Obviously a sh9tty paraphrase but you see the point. You should have said false, because it ISN"T justified to ignore evidence in either way. Evidence in this case being that murdering is wrong, and you're more than likely NOT and instrument of god.

[wilkin250r]

It doesn't say ignoring irrevocable proof, it says "regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it"

Evidence is not irrevocable proof.

And note the key word "external". Do you need a thermometer to tell you it's cold outside? Do you actually need to see your breath before you will believe it is cold? No, not at all, you can feel it for yourself and you believe it is cold outside, even though you have no external evidence.

So, the question begs, do I think Peter Sutcliffe believed he was acting morally? I don't believe his actions were moral, but I think that HE believed his actions were moral. Lots of people believe some crazy things, why do I have to bite the bullet on that one?

[310Rduner]

You're right about the wording of it, I was remembering it incorrectly and I should have looked it up again:

"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."

True/False


The point is peter sutcliffe is not justified in this position.You are not justified to ignore evidence when evidence is present. The key word is justified. I can hold as many opinions about the world as I want and ignore evidence that would warrant a change of opinion, but it would not be justified to do so. There is zero justifiable reason to ignore evidence in this pretext.

I can walk outside and feel it is hot, and say "It's 75 degrees outside". Would I then be justified to ignore the evidence? I don't need a thermometer to know it is hot (from your perspective) but I shouldn't then ignore a thermometer that may say it is really only 60 degrees.

[lil400exman]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
No, look at the story of Job. Satan can not do anything without God's permission.
fyi-that was before satan was hurled down permatly to earth by god. see he wasnt in full control of the system of things until 1914.:)

[trick450r]

i didnt get one hit....

[batgeek]

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets.

the murderer one got me...

just goes to show ya that no matter what your convictions are...it's alot more complicated that what some test can tell you.

[lil400exman]

Originally posted by batgeek
You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets.

the murderer one got me...

just goes to show ya that no matter what your convictions are...it's alot more complicated that what some test can tell you.
exactly.............many questions are more than a simple yes or no.....

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
The point is peter sutcliffe is not justified in this position.You are not justified to ignore evidence when evidence is present. The key word is justified. I can hold as many opinions about the world as I want and ignore evidence that would warrant a change of opinion, but it would not be justified to do so. There is zero justifiable reason to ignore evidence in this pretext.

I can walk outside and feel it is hot, and say "It's 75 degrees outside". Would I then be justified to ignore the evidence? I don't need a thermometer to know it is hot (from your perspective) but I shouldn't then ignore a thermometer that may say it is really only 60 degrees.

What if your thermometer is broken? What if it is very hot, but your thermometer reads only 5 degrees?

It's a stupid trap. If any part or combination of that sentence is true, than the entire sentence must be true. Let's put together one possible combination. "It is justifiable to believe in the external world based on an inner conviction regardless of the lack of evidence to the truth of these convictions." Anybody believing in God would almost have to answer yes to this combination.

And in doing so, they bite the bullet and justify the rapist. Stupid.