| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2003 10:49:39 PM |
| Object: |
Battleground god |
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Kilmir" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
15 Sep 2003 03:00:21 AM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030914224916.14850G-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Has been posted before and I still think it has a few wrong assumptions.
ie I need irrevocable proof of God in contrast to proof of evolution.
The possible answers are stated too strong. But yes I do need stronger proof
for an entity which is supposed to be the be all end all of everything and
if proven true basically stops all other lines of human research (what point
is there to describe the current universe when a being can change the
conditions of it on a whim) and can turn the world upside down. As someone
said before, extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy proof
I also bit a bullet for stating that god can make "1 + 1 = 72" for the
simple fact that a god can go back in time and change our way of descibing
things (where 1 is actually 9 for instance, 2 is 8 and 7 is 1 in our decimal
system).
As for illogical things it should be able to do... Hey, godworshippers make
the claim he can do everything, I don't.
--
Kilmir
AA #1944
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
16 Sep 2003 01:41:19 AM |
|
|
In article <3f65ff14$0$58705$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Kilmir" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030914224916.14850G-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Has been posted before and I still think it has a few wrong assumptions.
ie I need irrevocable proof of God in contrast to proof of evolution.
The possible answers are stated too strong. But yes I do need stronger proof
for an entity which is supposed to be the be all end all of everything and
if proven true basically stops all other lines of human research (what point
is there to describe the current universe when a being can change the
conditions of it on a whim) and can turn the world upside down. As someone
said before, extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy proof
I bit a bullet on this one too. That was the only one that I got.
Evolution is one of many natural processes in the universe which we
can study. While there are details yet to be worked out, the data
overwhelmingly support the theory.
A god, on the other hand, is in the realm of the supernatural,
outside of nature where we cannot study things in a scientific manner.
About the only way that I could be convinced of a god's existence
would have to be by direct revelation, which I do not have. I also
agree that this extraordinary claim does require very extraordinary
proofs. The standard for me is higher.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arjen Klaver" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
15 Sep 2003 01:27:20 PM |
|
|
at news:3f65ff14$0$58705$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl "Kilmir"
<nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3f65ff14$0$58705$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030914224916.14850G-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Has been posted before and I still think it has a few wrong
assumptions.
ie I need irrevocable proof of God in contrast to proof of evolution.
The possible answers are stated too strong. But yes I do need stronger
proof for an entity which is supposed to be the be all end all of
everything and if proven true basically stops all other lines of human
research (what point is there to describe the current universe when a
being can change the conditions of it on a whim) and can turn the
world upside down. As someone said before, extraordinairy claims
require extraordinairy proof
I hate that part also. I'm 99% certain there is no god. I always fall over
the word 'irrevocable'. (Almost) Nothing is irrevocable, thus according to
them everything can happen. Then they make in there head the pascal's
wager. Hey there is this really slim change that god does exists, lets
prepare for that!
Me: Let's NOT.
I also bit a bullet for stating that god can make "1 + 1 = 72" for the
simple fact that a god can go back in time and change our way of
descibing things (where 1 is actually 9 for instance, 2 is 8 and 7 is
1 in our decimal system).
I often took bullits/hits in the questions that start with 'if god exist'.
Well, the existance of god is illogical thus if god exists everything can
be illogical => headshots all the time. Nowadays I found the way out, just
choose false.
As for illogical things it should be able to do... Hey, godworshippers
make the claim he can do everything, I don't.
Lastly, this part: 'The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner
conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was,
therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in
undertaking these actions.'.
According to himself, he was justified in the actions. Society begs to
differ. So what to choose, true or false? The answer changes on
persective.
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
15 Sep 2003 11:20:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:27:20 GMT, Arjen Klaver <chips@stack.nl> posted
in alt.atheism:
I often took bullits/hits in the questions that start with 'if god exist'.
Well, the existance of god is illogical thus if god exists everything can
be illogical => headshots all the time. Nowadays I found the way out, just
choose false.
The distinction was that not all gods are omni*. Therefore, not all
gods must be able to do everything.
As for illogical things it should be able to do... Hey, godworshippers
make the claim he can do everything, I don't.
Lastly, this part: 'The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner
conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was,
therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in
undertaking these actions.'.
According to himself, he was justified in the actions.
Only if you said that belief in a god, even in the face of
contradictory evidence, is justified. Otherwise you're being
inconsistent, which was the point of the exercise.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
16 Sep 2003 11:04:41 AM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest
award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit
nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are
internally consistent and very well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that
implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you
responded in ways that required that you held views that most people
would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you
avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest
award. A fine achievement!
Click here if you want to review the criteria by which hits and
bullets are determined.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
15 Sep 2003 08:33:37 AM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Most questions are nothing but a silly game of semantics....
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
15 Sep 2003 08:34:58 AM |
|
|
Richard Smol wrote:
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Most questions are nothing but a silly game of semantics....
well duh....it's a game made by philosophers.....
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
15 Sep 2003 11:18:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:49:39 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
<human@csd.uwm.edu> posted in alt.atheism:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
"Danger, Will Robinson! An illogical person conceived of this test."
"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."
There is proof that evolution is true. There's no proof that any
theory about it is true. That the author doesn't understand the
difference between evolution and theories about it is sad. Even
sadder are the choices at this point:
"I do require a higher standard of proof for belief in God than belief
in evolution. I'll bite the bullet!"
and
"I'll take a direct hit. I did contradict myself!"
The third, and correct, choice is:
"Evolution is true. Evolution isn't the theories about it."
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Battleground god |
15 Sep 2003 12:42:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:49:39 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote
(in message <Pine.OSF.3.96.1030914224916.14850G-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>):
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Very interesting. No hits, and bit two bullets.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
"You think atoms like having a half-life?"
Incenjucar
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
