Battleground God - a test of rational consistency

7.63% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

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.

I was surprised it didn't show up in a search on this forum.

Cool! I'm not usually good with tests ;)

291190 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit zero bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
45.79% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.63% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

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 existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to take the direct hit.

If you notice how questions 6 and 13 are asked in different ways.

Question 6
"Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true."

Question 13
"It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists."

To be honest, question 13 should be worded:

"It is foolish to believe in God without any evidence that God exists."

See the difference? Don't take a direct hit, bite the bullet and demand some evidence, any evidence, that God exists. :)





Another interesting trap (perhaps for the believer) is if you answer that it is rational to come to the conclusion that the Loch Ness monster does not exist from the lack of data, yet it is not rational for the atheist to believe that God doesn't exist.

bit a bullet instead. We got the same score.

and found question 6 and 7 were contradictions because both call for a true false answer and the questions are not true and false or black and white. One asks the question about god being a guide and your internal convictions don't have any influence by the external, which is a false why to put the question because thats what fundies do, no matter what evidence they see, their inner convictions won't allow them to acknowledge it. The 6th question says science makes no mistakes which is a false statement.

I think you may be misinterpreting a quesiton.

"Question 6 :Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true."

How is that not a true false question? Is evolutionary theory essentially true? Yes or no?

Keep in mind that the test is testing your rational consistency throughout the test, not if your singular answers are untrue. It points out contradictions in your answers.


edit: ooops. Quesitons are the recently discovered particles that carry curiosity throughout the universe.

was, that it was asking if evolution qas 100% right even though some things aren't explainable. But then when dealing with religious sites I tend to try to look at what they are actually trying to say, so I might have mis-understood what the question said. From dealing with fundies I am very distrusting of them.

If ya like this sort of thing.



edit:form

Does the so-called Bell Curve describe the behavior of the universe? Or does the Bell Curve describe some aspect of the way the human mind creates a perception of the Universe?



The comparison of God to Nessie you've cited is loaded. Such a question is always meant to be incendiary; it is the straw man waiting for the torch.

Stepping aside from such questions, how much faith do you have in your own reality? In many cases atheism of the sort that compares Nessie to God is little more than a fundamentalism without a god. It is a faith in semantics that is as fragile as the fundamentalist's belief in Noah's Ark.

Let's get back to that bell curve...

In our lives there are things we care about and things we don't care about. In the physical sciences I believe the bell curve describes human perception. Outside of human perception this bell curve does not exist. We ourselves arrange the data that creates a Bell Curve.

In this universe every occurance, even of the most regular waveform, is entirely unique. Any granularity or absolute repetitions in this universe lie below Plank's constant:

Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^-34 m² kg / s

That's a very small number, and the inverse of it is very big, which leaves a whole lotta room for God and other stuff we don't know.

I happen to attend church most Sundays. I like going to church. I understand there are people who don't go to church and I simply assume their beliefs are as reasonable as my own. There is plenty of room for that.

But even if they are not, even if they took a few hits in this "Battleground God" survey, it's no big deal so long as we allow one another the freedoms to explore this universe in good faith.

This test isn't about metaphysics. This thread wasn't intended to be about whether or not God/s exist. This test is about the rational consistency of beliefs. Jesus would pass this test if he was rationally consistent.
It's ok to take a few hits and better to bite the bullet, but above all it's best to learn from the introspection that follows the test. I can only guess that, like me, you've learned something about your own point of view.
If one doesn't value reason and rational consistency over self-delusion, this test is worthless to them. It's a learning tool.

I dispute them both.

They claimed I was inconsistent in two questions, but they never defined "external"-- by their definition I was wrong, but by mine I was right.

Same thing with another one claiming that God became logically inconsistant with another of my answers. But, that is only in terms of Boolean logic, which God, if there is one, would not necessarily be subject to.

Yet another online game with some flaws, but overall still interesting.

I presume you're referring to the 'can God change the rational truths of mathematics' question?

I'd be interested in hearing more details about what you dispute.

and my answer would be that if God is omnipotent, why would God be subject to what we see as the limits of rationality. That seems to have conflicted with an earlier answer.

We're talking the supernatural here, where our commonly understood laws of physics, mathematics, etc., don't work.

A lot depends on how one views the limits of a transcendant God, and needs more than a yes/no answer. Or at least more definitions going in.

(Maybe I should have read the FAQ-- but the test itself should stand on its own.)

Now you're using the Kierkegaard 'defense' from the OP?: "Of course, you may go along with thinkers such as Kierkegaard and believe that religious belief does not need to be rationally consistent. But that takes us beyond the scope of this activity, which is about the extent to which your beliefs are rationally consistent, not whether this is a good or a bad thing."

Point blank: The test doesn't claim that God is subject to what we see as the limits of rationality. I'm still convinced that the test itself stands on its own.

I'm saying that there are options. And I'm asking just what is "rational" when discussing faith.

The question I got the bullet on was the squared circle one, and that one, iirc, is pretty much along the lines of "Can he make a rock so big he can't lift it." Ultimately, the question is whether or not God is limited the same way we are-- an omnipotent God can lift the rock he made that was so big he can't lift it. That's why he's God, and we're not. It's not logically consistant in our world, but very likely could be in God's.

Religious belief in our own little world has to be at least somewhat rationally consistent, but when we talk about the nature of God, we are getting into some treacherous metaphysical territory and there are no right answers.

(I finally read the FAQ, and it dances around this.)

we won't get far with this. Are you dancing around giving up the details? ;)
I think you're still missing the point that the test isn't for right or wrong answers per se, only for the test-takers rational consistency from one answer to the next. To be clear, a theist could take the test honestly and pass unscathed, so long as they were rationally consistent in their answers.

note: mathematical truths are rational truths. They are consistent and don't change through time like empirical truths do. But again, the test doesn't make a judgment one way or the other as to whether or not God is so all powerful as to be able to change mathematical truths.

interjecting my own theology in here. I really don't remember just what my answer on the squared circle was inconsistant with, but I'm not sure it matters all that much.

The test itself is just a trivial matching of answers to detect inconsistancies, and even the instructions admit that there are grey areas where true/false answers won't work properly. They also admit they could be entirely wrong.

You're right that there are no right or wrong answers-- just like the angels dancing on the head of a pin thing, it's an exercise with no answer. Like the sound of one hand clapping, this sort of thing is done all the time in many disciplines to keep us on our toes.

It's a somewhat useful exercise, but ultimately one's beliefs go much further than this fun toy. And, to really find the substantial inconsistancies with belief, which all of us have, it would take much more than this.

"I really don't remember just what my answer on the squared circle was inconsistant with, but I'm not sure it matters all that much."

If you aren't interested in applying yourself to the test and investigating your inconsistency, what's the point? It appears that you don't want to get bogged down in the details, and prefer to impugn the game.

"even the instructions admit that there are grey areas where true/false answers won't work properly."

Where? Are you really talking about this? :


I guess I need to say out loud that yes, this a game. However, caveats made in the rules don't mean that an unsound argument will get you off the hook for hits taken. ;)

and I'm a lot busier working out some other theological problems.

FWIW, I'm doing a lot of catching up on things I haven't dealt with for years while working on a critique of Barclay's Apology (yet another project I'd love to have the time to finish). Inconsistancies in theology seem to be a given and do tend to drive you nuts after a while. If there's an afterlife and you ever run into Descartes or Spinoza, ask them about it. Me, I'd love to meet them and see what they, and a lot of others, have learned since then. Hegel and Barth must be real hoots by now.

Fun's fun, but the very notions of omniscience or omnipotence are irrational in our terms. Our puny minds just can't grasp the concepts of the continuums and eternities that a God lives in.

...because it's just a dumb-ass word game totally out of context with the other questions.



(A few years ago a Honda engineer built a square wheel bicycle that didn't need the special track, but I couldn't find a picture of it.)

In any case the real universe does not practice addition and subtraction. Addition and subtraction only happen within the human mind when we define and manipulate various sets.

Suppose I have two pennies. 1 penny + 1 penny = 2 pennies, right? But the idea that these are "two things" is entirely within our heads. The pennies are unique objects. Any relationship between them is defined by us, the observer. One penny might even be solid copper, and the other copper-plated zinc, which would make the differences between them greater than those between a copper penny and a modern mostly copper dime.

Every congregation of energy states (this includes mass) is unique. The universe itself is entirely blind to our rationalizations. We try to model our math on the behavior of the universe; it's certainly not the other way around. When you get right down to it "1+1=72" is nothing more than the way your brain interpreted some darker places on your retina while you were looking at your computer monitor.

Theologically speaking, if God made square sircles, or 1+1=72, this would be a violation of our free will, and so I answered "false." From my perspective I did not take a hit, the quiz itself did.

Yes, I agree with you, the FAQ "dances around this."

What were your True of False answers to the questions related to these two statements:
16. If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

5. Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.

Was your answer the same for both?

And on 'reality not practicing addition and subtraction', well reality sure is doing a hell of a lot of rehearsing then. Seriously though, the addition of 1 to 1 will always equal two just as splitting one thing down the middle will always result in the quantity 2, and bisecting a right angle will always result in two 45 degree angles. These are stable and enduring truths of your "real universe". The universe doesn't exactly practice addition and subtraction so much as it composed of it. When humans 'do math' we gain insight into the nature of the "real universe". To jump from this tangent,
The test isn't claiming one way or the other if God can make 1+1 equal 72. Did you "take a hit" or "bite the bullet" on that one?

To do otherwise would be incosistent with my religious belief. The answer "True" implies to me an authoritarian God, and denies free will. 1+1=72 and circles are squares "because I said so." I hated it when my mom did that, and I'd hate it even more if God did that.

Take a look at my post above and let me expand a little on it.

To split a thing in half you must first define what that thing is. To add things together you must define the sets of things you are adding. I can take the five toes on my left foot, and the five toes on my right foot, and add them together, 5+5=10. But that's all in my head. The universe does not count toes.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the Universe is something like a computer simulation, and that there is a register of your toes kept outside the universe. That's very similar to the God who knows every sparrow, but without the God. I don't think the universe is so simple.

I can ascribe many deeper meanings to question 5. Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. It doesn't even have to be the same meaning anyone else sees in it. Given the key's to God's car, one person might drive back in time to see Christ risen, another might go four-wheeling on Titan, and another might run over Hitler's mom before he was born.

But question 16. If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72 is just a silly word game unless you truly believe words and math exist outside of the mind.

It is my understanding that words are just one of the tools I use to communicate with other human beings (or even my dog) and that everything we know about math and physics is little more than an imperfect model of the actual universe.

Square circles? I posted a picture of a bicycle with square wheels. And if I made two 36 cent coins (which would be sort of cool if you enjoy fractions!) then 1 coin + 1 coin would equal 72 cents. Party games.

In question 5 God can do anything. In question 16 God is only messing with your head. To me it was a choice between the omnipotent God of question 5 (True) and the silly word game god of question 16 (false).

The prejudice of this test's author, and your prejudice, is that math and physics directly describe the universe, when in fact they are nothing more than very useful models. Newton thought he had described a wonderful clockwork universe, but he didn't have the entire picture. The greatest physicists of today don't have the entire picture.

They will still amount to word games trying to excuse yourself from not answering False to question #5, or for not answering True to #16. Maybe you should have at least bitten the bullet on 16?
It's very clear that you are (possibly willfully?) missing the point that this test doesn't have a position on whether or not God can make 1 + 1 = 2.(!) When you say in question 5 that 'God can do anything', that was your opinion, not the tests. Then in 16 when memories of your childhood flooded in I gather, you said in effect that God can't do anything. Especially if it involves messing with your head! :) A contradiction, a rational inconsistency. It's as simple as that.
Your answer to Q 5: God can do anything.
Your answer to Q 16: God can't do anything.

Also, a square wheel is not a circle, so is not an example of how a circle can be a square. It is another word game in which you use synonyms to the confuse the issue. Much like exchanging the simple and clear term "one" for "the monetary value represented by one 36 cent coin". That doesn't fly.
One 36 cent coin + one 36 cent coin = 2 coins worth 72 cents.

You said: "The prejudice of this test's author, and your prejudice, is that math and physics directly describe the universe, when in fact they are nothing more than very useful models. Newton thought he had described a wonderful clockwork universe, but he didn't have the entire picture. The greatest physicists of today don't have the entire picture."
Firstly, you are way off base with your assumptions of Cartesian prejudice on my part (Descartes was the clockwork universe guy). Not that having to defend my self should be relevant to this discussion, but I'm more in line with systems thinking.
Finally and more importantly, you are driving home the point that you are missing that this test doesn't have an opinion on whether or not God exists and this test doesn't claim to 'know' any correct model of the universe.

To summarize:
Your answer to Q 5: God can do anything.
Your answer to Q 16: God can't do anything.

It really is just as simple as that.

edit: math error lol

:evilgrin:

To summarize:

My answer to Q 5: God can do anything
My answer to Q 16: It is noise, not a question. I can amuse myself thinking of some pattern that might fit the noise, but in the end it is still noise.

The test is certainly prejudiced, in a variety of ways. First of all it seeks to provoke emotional responses. Comparing Nessie to God? Rapists? Please. It is bullshit to claim this test doesn't have an opinion.

So then, what is systems thinking? I can google it and get lots of stuff that looks spooky.

Most of all, are you watching your toes? Somebody might be counting them while you're not looking.

but that one makes me curious.

Are you saying that if God were to change things so that our definitions didn't work any more, he'd just be messing with our heads-- very likely for no good reason?

The concept of omnipotence seems to imply that such a God could very easily take two identical pennies and turn them into three, or 72, when placed together. But, then, why would he do such a thing? Why upset our universe-- which he presumably created and gave to us? Isn't there some cosmic responsibility that even God is beholden to?

He's just playing with Himself.

I welcome you to the fold with open heart.

But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"

He replied, "I heard the sound as you were walking in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself."

God answered, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree which I forbade you?"

The man said, "The woman you gave me me for a companion, she gave me the fruit of the tree and I ate it."

So the Lord God drove him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken. He cast him out, and to the east of the garden of Eden he stationed the cherubim and a sword whirling and flashing to guard the way to the tree of life.

which, I think, is an improvement on when I took it a couple of years ago (though that might have been another TPM 'battleground', but I think it was this one about god). I suspect my improvement in consistency is due to discussions on DU. Thanks, everyone.

I've had this bookmarked for a few years having posted it in the old Meeting Room. When I took it then, I remember biting a bullet or two, and this time I was very proud of myself - then I fucked up on question 14 because I held a higher standard of proof for evolution than I previously did with the Loch Ness Monster. (I must say, I'd rather err on that side of things. ;))

I would have liked a "not necessarily" option for a couple questions, but that would have given too much wiggle room, I guess.

I'm mostly consistent.

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

How did you do compared to other people?

291588 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered zero direct hits and bit 2 bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
45.79% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.63% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

When the recruiters come, just say no.