Comments on: Test Your God Logic http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/ by Hemant Mehta Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Alec http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-552397 Alec Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:18:13 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-552397 This wasn't fair. I bit two bullets. If I think the belief in a deity isn't rational, why does it matter if I think a god could make a square circle or not? Philosophically, it's all hypothetical. This wasn’t fair. I bit two bullets. If I think the belief in a deity isn’t rational, why does it matter if I think a god could make a square circle or not? Philosophically, it’s all hypothetical.

]]> By: Test your God logic « The Evolving Atheist's Blog http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-438947 Test your God logic « The Evolving Atheist's Blog Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:47:32 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-438947 [...] January 12, 2008 at 1:34 am (evolving atheist) From The Friendly Atheist: [...] [...] January 12, 2008 at 1:34 am (evolving atheist) From The Friendly Atheist: [...]

]]> By: Jesse http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-263168 Jesse Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:23:01 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-263168 The authors of this quiz have made a few logical errors. One is in regard to evolution, which it seems a few other people pointed out, but for the sake of clarity: evolutionary theory may be false in some details, but is in fact, certain to be essentially true and does not require a "lower standard of proof than god". others are the questions that follow the form of: "any being that could be called god could..." because some of these defining traits are how a rational person knows that there is no god, so to answer true and later say that no such thing could ever happen is consistent with the fact that god could not exist. The authors of this quiz have made a few logical errors.
One is in regard to evolution, which it seems a few other people pointed out, but for the sake of clarity: evolutionary theory may be false in some details, but is in fact, certain to be essentially true and does not require a “lower standard of proof than god”.
others are the questions that follow the form of: “any being that could be called god could…” because some of these defining traits are how a rational person knows that there is no god, so to answer true and later say that no such thing could ever happen is consistent with the fact that god could not exist.

]]> By: Sgeo http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-129323 Sgeo Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:59:49 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-129323 Ok, I got 100 hits and 100 bullets. Not really, but here's a link to all possible hits and bullets: <a href="http://www.philosophersnet.com/cgi-bin/god_game2.cgi?bulletcount=100&hitcount=100&hit7=true&bullet7=true&hit9a=true&hit9b=true&bullet11=true&hit11=true&hit12a=true&hit12b=true&bullet12=true&hit13a=true&hit13b=true&bullet13=true&hit14=true&bullet14=true&hit15a=true&hit15b=true&bullet15a=true&bullet15b=true&bullet16=true&hit16a=true&hit17a=true&hit17b=true&hit17c=true&hit17d=true&miss=" rel="nofollow">All hits and bullets</a> Ok, I got 100 hits and 100 bullets. Not really, but here’s a link to all possible hits and bullets: All hits and bullets

]]> By: Shauna http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114624 Shauna Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:54:39 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114624 I took zero direct hits and 2 bit bullets. I contend that those two bit bullets could be argued in my favor. I said a belief in god requires more proof than evolution and I stand by that, god is a much more complex and impossible of a conclusion than evolution. And for the second one about god could making a circle a square or 1 +1 = 72 I was looking at it not from a math view but from the idea that these are just labels and words. god would not need to change them as much as either force us to believe in them differently or to change the words themselves but that's just me being nit picky. :) I took zero direct hits and 2 bit bullets. I contend that those two bit bullets could be argued in my favor. I said a belief in god requires more proof than evolution and I stand by that, god is a much more complex and impossible of a conclusion than evolution. And for the second one about god could making a circle a square or 1 +1 = 72 I was looking at it not from a math view but from the idea that these are just labels and words. god would not need to change them as much as either force us to believe in them differently or to change the words themselves but that’s just me being nit picky. :)

]]> By: anti-nonsense http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114520 anti-nonsense Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:52:31 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114520 <blockquote>1 hit and 1 bullet. The only reason I got a hit was I responded that evolution isn’t necessarily complete (no scientific theory is and they never will be), but when asking about evidence for god it used the word “absolute.” If there was as much evidence for a god as evolution I would accept his/her existence.</blockquote> I got hit once for much the same reason. Other then that, I was perfect. And I didn't get into trouble with the questions about omnipotence because I define omnipotence is being able to anything, even things that are logically nonsensical, so I said it's not necessary to have an omnipotent god, because such a being would be logically incoherent.

1 hit and 1 bullet. The only reason I got a hit was I responded that evolution isn’t necessarily complete (no scientific theory is and they never will be), but when asking about evidence for god it used the word “absolute.” If there was as much evidence for a god as evolution I would accept his/her existence.

I got hit once for much the same reason. Other then that, I was perfect.

And I didn’t get into trouble with the questions about omnipotence because I define omnipotence is being able to anything, even things that are logically nonsensical, so I said it’s not necessary to have an omnipotent god, because such a being would be logically incoherent.

]]> By: Eliza http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114477 Eliza Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:11:46 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114477 Right. If you define God as all powerful, then the God you believe in will be all powerful. Yet, you/we/everyone really doesn't know if that's the case. Could put all those theists who agree on God's omnipotence in an awkward spot when the big guy comes calling... And, no need to invoke epistemological nihilism. It's not true that we know equally little about everything, including God. Right. If you define God as all powerful, then the God you believe in will be all powerful. Yet, you/we/everyone really doesn’t know if that’s the case. Could put all those theists who agree on God’s omnipotence in an awkward spot when the big guy comes calling…

And, no need to invoke epistemological nihilism. It’s not true that we know equally little about everything, including God.

]]> By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114472 olvlzl, no ism, no ist Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:54:11 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114472 Eliza, just about all of modern theism defines God as all powerful. You think I made that up, don't you. I withhold what I believe in these areas because it is irrelevant to the points. And I have no problem with people who honesty believe differently than I do, as long as they are not bigoted or dishonest. <blockquote>Everything anyone can say about God is a guess, a human idea & something about which we cannot & will not ever* agree there is any direct experience.</blockquote> Well, yeah. That's why it's called "belief". If you insist on a "correct answer: to everything before you believe it, you are going to find that you are left with very, very little to believe in. And almost everything that human beings depend on they do on the basis of experience and belief, not on the basis of what is known apart from those. Eliza, just about all of modern theism defines God as all powerful. You think I made that up, don’t you. I withhold what I believe in these areas because it is irrelevant to the points. And I have no problem with people who honesty believe differently than I do, as long as they are not bigoted or dishonest.

Everything anyone can say about God is a guess, a human idea & something about which we cannot & will not ever* agree there is any direct experience.

Well, yeah. That’s why it’s called “belief”. If you insist on a “correct answer: to everything before you believe it, you are going to find that you are left with very, very little to believe in. And almost everything that human beings depend on they do on the basis of experience and belief, not on the basis of what is known apart from those.

]]> By: Quixie http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114438 Quixie Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:28:35 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114438 1 bullet 0 hits o_Ó 1 bullet
0 hits

o_Ó

]]> By: Cade http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114377 Cade Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:58:52 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/11/test-your-god-logic/#comment-114377 I took 2 direct hits, but I'd argue that they were poorly worded. When I said that any God would be able to do anything, I was thinking along the lines of anything logically consistent. I took 2 direct hits, but I’d argue that they were poorly worded. When I said that any God would be able to do anything, I was thinking along the lines of anything logically consistent.

]]>