Quiz: Battleground God and DIY Deity

[Dadinho]

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

Christopher's belief-o-matic thread reminded me of two other excellent quizzes, Battleground God and Do-It-Yourself Deity. They are designed to test the logicality of your idea of God, or disbelief.

But then again, ...

...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.

[YankHibee]

The battleground God test didn't seem to be worth much to me, and didn't even seem to apply logic all that well. Still reasonably entertaining compared to work.

[Dadinho]

I haven't found any problems in it, but my views on God were deemed to be logically consistent. What was your problem?

;)

[YankHibee]

I could easily put a version of god through it that it would say is logically consistent--I put several versions through the tests. The problems were of oversimplification--which wasn't surprising in an online test.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

Apparently believing that you can have faith in something unseen means you have to justify someone killing hookers in the name of God.

Yessiree, that's an open-and-shut case :rolleyes:

[Dadinho]

Apparently believing that you can have faith in something unseen means you have to justify someone killing hookers in the name of God.

Yessiree, that's an open-and-shut case :rolleyes:

First, take a breath and repeat after me, it is only an Internet quiz to test the logicality of your belief, which may actually be illogical (and that may not matter to you). Furthermore, the fact that it is an Internet quiz means it is probably imperfect, but that doesn't take away from the fact that when people talk about things they are most passionate, they are often illogical.

For example, believing in an omnibelevolent and omnipotent God does mean that you have to justify God's seeming lack of compassion. If he is all-good and all-powerful, yet evil still exist, logically you have to come to the conclusion that evil isn't actually bad, because how can an all-good being and all-powerful being stand by while dictators (or anyone for that matter) kill innocents. Unless, of course, you stand by the doctrine that there are no innocents (original sin?).

[NoodlesMacintosh]

First, take a breath and repeat after me, it is only an Internet quiz to test the logicality of your belief, which may actually be illogical (and that may not matter to you). Furthermore, the fact that it is an Internet quiz means it is probably imperfect, but that doesn't take away from the fact that when people talk about things they are most passionate, they are often illogical.

Calm yourself. I'm not worked up over it, merely disappointed in it. And it's rather rude of you to assume offhand that my beliefs are illogical.

For example, believing in an omnibelevolent and omnipotent God does mean that you have to justify God's seeming lack of compassion. If he is all-good and all-powerful, yet evil still exist, logically you have to come to the conclusion that evil isn't actually bad, because how can an all-good being and all-powerful being stand by while dictators (or anyone for that matter) kill innocents. Unless, of course, you stand by the doctrine that there are no innocents (original sin?).

I believe there are innocents, and I believe that God is both all-good and all-powerful. That does not inherently mean that evil isn't bad and/or that God doesn't care. I believe that this life is for the sake of learning, and that God more or less leaves us be to see what we do and how we react to him not making himself blazingly apparent to the populace. What's the point of everyone being forced to follow certain rules? What's the point of forcing a child to obey your every whim instead of letting him learn things on his own? What does a child learn when he has no choice?

If you don't believe that, fine. But I do, and I find it logical.

[Dadinho]

Calm yourself. I'm not worked up over it, merely disappointed in it. And it's rather rude of you to assume offhand that my beliefs are illogical.



I believe there are innocents, and I believe that God is both all-good and all-powerful. That does not inherently mean that evil isn't bad and/or that God doesn't care. I believe that this life is for the sake of learning, and that God more or less leaves us be to see what we do and how we react to him not making himself blazingly apparent to the populace. What's the point of everyone being forced to follow certain rules? What's the point of forcing a child to obey your every whim instead of letting him learn things on his own? What does a child learn when he has no choice?

If you don't believe that, fine. But I do, and I find it logical.

See, your views aren´t logical, but as you say you find them perfectly ok, and that is ok.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

See, your views aren´t logical, but as you say you find them perfectly ok, and that is ok.

Care to explain your assertion? Or no?

[YankHibee]

The conflict lies in what may be implicit in all powerfulness--that is omniscience, which then provides the conflict of the existence of free will. A good point/counterpoint on this can be found in Erasmus' discussion of the free will, compared with Luther's de servo arbitrio (The Bondage of the Will), and, of course, Calvin's writings.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

The conflict lies in what may be implicit in all powerfulness--that is omniscience, which then provides the conflict of the existence of free will. A good point/counterpoint on this can be found in Erasmus' discussion of the free will, compared with Luther's de servo arbitrio (The Bondage of the Will), and, of course, Calvin's writings.

I think it's difficult but not an implicit conflict. To force everything to be okay is like wrapping your kid in pillows before you send him out on the football field. Sure, he won't get hurt, but he also won't learn how to take a hit or recover from one.

[YankHibee]

I think it's difficult but not an implicit conflict. To force everything to be okay is like wrapping your kid in pillows before you send him out on the football field. Sure, he won't get hurt, but he also won't learn how to take a hit or recover from one.


Sort of. The problem is that when combing omniscience and omnipotence, god would have known at creation the outcome of his decisions. Because god knew those things when she all-powerfully created, there really aren't decisions nongods are able to make that aren't the result of god's decision. If god is omnibenevolent, then the existence of nongood is the result of god's decision to create and god knew that nongood would come of creation. Therefore, one of those omni's cannot be true.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

Sort of. The problem is that when combing omniscience and omnipotence, god would have known at creation the outcome of his decisions. Because god knew those things when she all-powerfully created, there really aren't decisions nongods are able to make that aren't the result of god's decision. If god is omnibenevolent, then the existence of nongood is the result of god's decision to create and god knew that nongood would come of creation. Therefore, one of those omni's cannot be true.

I don't think I'd argue that God is omnibenevolent, and I would differentiate that from all-good. Maybe all-just is a better term. God will let you do what you will even when he knows what'll happen; it's still your decision to make. If God were omnibenevolent then everyone would be happy all the time. Of course you could then argue that the plight of certain peoples and individuals is not just. I would disagree with this because I believe there are ultimately rules to abide by and they are what make the end just. Crimes are still committed. But eventually (and maybe after too long for some) everyone gets what they've earned.

[YankHibee]

I don't think I'd argue that God is omnibenevolent, and I would differentiate that from all-good. Maybe all-just is a better term. God will let you do what you will even when he knows what'll happen; it's still your decision to make. If God were omnibenevolent then everyone would be happy all the time. Of course you could then argue that the plight of certain peoples and individuals is not just. I would disagree with this because I believe there are ultimately rules to abide by and they are what make the end just. Crimes are still committed. But eventually (and maybe after too long for some) everyone gets what they've earned.


Thats fine, and a pretty reasonable worldview, it just probably doesn't fit within the rules of formal logic. I think it would be interesting to have Chad, or one amongst us more trained in philosophy, weigh in here.

[Dadinho]

I don't think I'd argue that God is omnibenevolent...

Noodles, as YankHibee said, your views aren't unresonable...

If you combine omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence they contradict what we see happening on a day-to-day basis, as YH already stated. Of course, you have introduced a problem by saying that it all equals out in the end; however, it'd be near impossible to persuade most logicians to take something unprovable like the afterlife into account. So even if your god were all-just instead of all-good it'd be, from my view, a very difficult pill to swallow logically.

Now, Noodles, there are many philosophers who've taken a position similiar to yours. You're in good company, but it doesn't necessarily mean that your views are logical. Soren Kierkegaard, a brilliant philosopher, believed that logicality wasn't important when considering matters of faith, because, well, they are matters of faith.

This link provides one logical proof of God's existence (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57), but as you'll see it makes no attempt to describe characteristics, because doing so creates logical traps.

[spejic]

This link provides one logical proof of God's existence (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57), but as you'll see it makes no attempt to describe characteristics, because doing so creates logical traps.I thought it was embarrassingly bad.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

I thought it was embarrassingly bad.

All it seems to say is that something caused the universe to be. I didn't know you needed a mathematical proof to state that.

[Dadinho]

I thought it was embarrassingly bad.

Most of them are :D

[Dadinho]

And that is all it is supposed to say, because it is a logical proof for the existence of god. And, yes, when speaking about logic, mathematics is very important. Think of logic as math of arguments.

William Hatcher´s proof seems to be in line withSpinoza´s (http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm) conception of god instead of with the traditional christian philosophers like Augustine or Aquinas. You can argue that Spinoza was wrong, but his ideas are much much much simpler to prove than the traditional omni-god.

[quentinc]

That was kind of ridiculous, because it juxtaposed things that were largely ludicrous and entirely unbelievable with belief in the existence of God. Which, although I do not believe in the existence of God, does not mean that I can see the rationale behind the belief in a God.