Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

philosophersnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#41

Post by loup-vaillant »

I got a direct hit because of a contradiction between question 5 (I answered true) and question 16 (I answered false).

Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something, that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood the meaning of "create".

Squares and circles are not physical things. They are mathematical concepts. We don't create them, we imagine them. Likewise, the fact that 1+1=2 (and not 72) is only based on mathematical concepts. Actually 1+1=2 is not even a fact, that's a tautology. It says nothing about our world[1].

Of course, an omnipotent God could totally make us believe that 1+1=72, or that square circles actually exist in our world. But that wouldn't make it true. That just would make us irrational.

[1]: the concept itself says nothing, but of course, the fact that we thought the concept says a lot about us and our universe.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#42

Post by donaq »

timcederman wrote: post #12

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. It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial tea…

I got the same thing and I chose to bite the bullet.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#43

Post by revolvingcur »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #34
ThomPete wrote: post #24

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?

You play with the words too much here. Any theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?

What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions (models).

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#44

Post by tspiteri »

cwp wrote: post #18
ziadbc wrote: post #5

Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in…

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.

Well, it's a bit like this:

1. Is it justifiable to walk into a shop?

2. John Does walked into a shop and murdered all present. Was he justified in walking into the shop?

Answering yes to 1 and no to 2 is a contradiction in the same way. But, is it really valid to separate the action of walking into the shop with the murder of those present? Is it really valid to separate Sutcliffe's belief from his actions?

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#45

Post by harrys »

this is very logical. Well built and programed. But humans are not logical. You ask questions for the reason to contradict. The fact the Sutcliffe raped people based on that God told him to...Uhm I dont think so. Ask your self this, if this "God" told him to do so; then who is this God? If you read in the bible it sais who God is. And that is not who God is, love does not harm any one. God did not tell him this, unfortunately he was fooled. Making the Q's not valid IMO

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#46

Post by harrys »

timcederman wrote: post #12

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. It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial tea…

Agree, it is a controlled environment...

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#47

Post by ThomPete »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #34
ThomPete wrote: post #24

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?

You play with the words too much here. Any theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?

I don't think it makes any sense to call evolutionary theory for true. It's completely missing the point.

If anything evolutionary theory is useful to explain phenomena it is not a true explanation of phenomena. There are no true explanations only consistent explanations branching out from the premise.

Physics is no exception. It's a model to explain phenomena and predict outcomes which are always temporary.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#48

Post by roel_v »

anthonyb wrote: post #13
scotty79 wrote: post #8

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.

Yeah me too. Whoever created this test has obviously never programmed in C or C++. The question says 'If there is a god...' but after that point you are outside of the Standard! And we all know that when you leave the well-defined territory of the Standard, all behavior is implementation-defined! So there may or may not be square circles, we have no way to tell :(

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#49

Post by loup-vaillant »

anthonyb wrote: post #38
loup-vaillant wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you know that squares or circles are outside our world? I guess it's hair-splitting, which is what the questionnaire was trying to avoid (ie. it's not a rational/refutable proposition), but how do you know for certain? It might be hard to conceive of such a world - much like trying to think about five-dimensional objects - but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

> How do you know that squares or circles are outside our world?

I know it because of my overall education. If I had a different education, I might have believed otherwise. Anyway, I'm pretty darn sure of myself, and I have actual arguments to back it up.

Have you ever seen a circle? A real circle, and not just a clever disposition of graphite on a sheet of paper. Likewise, have you ever seen a number? A real number, not just a decimal representation of it.

Even better, have you ever perceived a circle or a numbers in any way? Do you know of anyone who has? Do you know of any experiment that could assess or falsify the theory that circles or numbers exist in our world?

I don't.

Because they are mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts aren't meant to describe things that exist in our world, unlike the concepts of "rock", "human", or "electron". Therefore, you can't make a statement about our world using only mathematical concepts. They help, but they are not enough.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#50

Post by ThomPete »

revolvingcur wrote: post #43
loup-vaillant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You play with the words too much here. Any theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?

What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions (models).

Exactly.

The problem arises not when we say one model is more useful or accurate (for our purpose) than another, but when we start to say that something is true.

As if narratives however abstract (math for instance instead of words) are describing reality.

They are not.

Post reply on HN