31–40 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the question was not whether Sutcliffe was justified in committing rape, but whether he was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. If "firm inner conviction" justifies a belief, and Sutcliffe had firm inner conviction, then Sutcliffe was justified in his belief.
I have a firm inner conviction that this test is wrong, regardless of external evidence to the contrary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No hits. My two bullets: ## 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 e…
I got bitten by that second one too. My reasoning was that rationality (or at least part of it) is likely to be a product of the universe in which you live. Assuming that God created it, they might be just as likely to create a different one where square circles might exist.
A useful and somewhat though-provoking test. But, it feels really frustrating not being able to argue back; especially when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable", etc) that I disagree with. :-)
I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather than arguing back, we could contact them with suggestions. Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).
There are so many problems with this test. For instance. It sets up evolutionary theory as a true false theory. But evolutionary theory is a model to explain phenomena. It's neither true nor false. (I say that as an atheist btw.) Edit: Instead of just down voting why don't you come forward with an argument?
So how am I supposed to answer "is it rational to believe that Nessie does not exist if there has never been any evidence for it"? I don't think it is likely that Nessie exists, but I can not prove the opposite either. So I can not claim to believe that Nessie does not exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if he goes against the will of God, surely that's inconsistent - given the emphasis that (eg.) the Bible places on unquestioning obedience to God? Unless he believes in an evil God...
There's plenty of stuff in the Bible about God allowing/condoning/performing murder and rape as well though .... http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm -- Ayjay on Fedang
Which I deem to be true. I earlier responded "God does not exists". So there really is not contradiction as claimed by the game
"You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering."
since I deem the premise of question 12 false (God does not exist). Again "If God exists than she can do such and such ..." is always true if God does not exist.
Furthermore I also think there might be a semantical problem in the analysis. The game did not establish that sin implies suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got bitten by that second one too. My reasoning was that rationality (or at least part of it) is likely to be a product of the universe in which you live. Assuming that God created it, they might be just as likely to create a different one where square circles might exist.
The problem is, neither squares nor circles exist in our world. Talking about a world where square circles exist is meaningless. Squares and circles are mathematical concepts. They often are a model of parts of our world. Of course, the fact that we created these concepts is a product of our universe. But the concepts themselves are independent of any universe. Therefore, they are independent of the will of God (if s…
A useful and somewhat though-provoking test. But, it feels really frustrating not being able to argue back; especially when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable", etc) that I disagree with. :-)
You don't have to get very technical to use the meaning of "irrevocable proof". Interpreting the definition to mean 'proof that cannot be refuted' is pretty straightforward, and not a technicality at all.
A irrefutable proof in mathematics is no problem - no theoretical possibility of being incorrect exists.
But, if the phrase "irrefutable proof" in "softer" context is to have any meaning at all, it can't mean the same as in maths, since there will always be a possibility of being incorrect.
By using the phrase at all in eg. biology, it must therefore mean "the possibility of being incorrect is vanishingly small", otherwise we're just talking gibberish.
Generally, different context give the same phrase different meanings, so taking literal logical paths through a series of different statements is silly and pointless and best left to philosophers. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to get very technical to use the meaning of "irrevocable proof". Interpreting the definition to mean 'proof that cannot be refuted' is pretty straightforward, and not a technicality at all.
I'm not so sure that "irrevocable proof" really makes that much sense. How do you prove something and then revoke it? Something like "irrefutable proof" would be better.