Battleground God

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Go down to where it says "If you're ready to start, click here", and try your luck.

 

What the hell? I don't get this game.

 

You're supposed to go down to where it says "If you're ready to start, click here".

 

how exactly do you play this

 

Go down to where it says "If you're ready to start, click here". Click there. Answer the questions.

 

After 18 Page could not be found error.

 

1 bit bullet and 0 direct hits.

:3

 

Lol this game is dumb. I could give logical explanitations to every single hit I took.

And why do the keep refering God to a "she"

 

Feel free to do so. Philosophers welcome open discourse.

Just to raise everybody's consciousness about over-using masculine pronouns.

 

How about you ask me questions.

He is a common word for both male and female.

 

Well it would be easier if I knew what questions you took hits on and what questions went fine.

Yes, and it leads some to think that the subject is always male. It is important to realize that male and female are biological characteristics, something that a deity would be unlikely to possess.

 

http://www.philosophersnet.com/cgi-...=38.33&avnone=8.28&avhits=1.39&avbullets=1.10

 

Ok, let's begin:

So you agree that:


- God can prevent suffering.
- God wants to prevent suffering.
- Suffering serves no higher purpose.


Why, then, does suffering exist?

I'd have bitten the bullet, but whatever, this isn't a major one.

So it is rational to disbelieve in the Loch Ness Monster if there is a lack of evidence, but it is not rational to disbelieve in God if there is a lack of evidence? Why is this?


Note that I am asking for direct evidence, not a "How else did natural phenomena x y and z occur?" question.

Well, this one is clear. You said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs on a strong inner feeling - yet Peter Sutcliffe based his actions on a strong inner feeling. Clearly something more is required to justify a belief.

I am guessing that you changed your mind on that one?

 

This is interesting... The wording on it makes it so I have to read it carefully and I got bored around question 15... I had one thing that said you have to take a direct hit or bite teh bullet.. I just did not understand how the game worked before when I answered old one... :/

 

I g2g i will andswer your question in about 2-3 hrs.

 

http://www.philosophersnet.com/cgi-...=38.33&avnone=8.28&avhits=1.39&avbullets=1.10

 

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting no bullets suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. 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, this did not occur, and consequently, you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!


Very well

 

You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten 1 bullet.

Up to question 15 I was unharmed.

I said it was true that people can believe in God based on a inner feeling with no evidence. They brought up a rapist that said he did it because the lord wanted him to. I said it wasn't justified. Although he did what he truly believed was right I still say he's wrong and going to hell.

 

this game is confusing. barely understand the questions

 

They're supposed to make you contradict yourself. The questions were designed that way