Subject:
|
Re: The God Game!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:07:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1443 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> This one's for you, Dave!
> http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi
>
> 'Course, it counted me as being contradictory several times, though I'll
> maintain that either I wasn't contradictory or (in at least one case) the
> questions are rather flawed. But cute, nonetheless.
>
> DaveE
Somewhat fun, but I agree that some questions were flawed. The used certain
words like "rational" or "justified" to put you in forced choice dilemas. About
halfway through I stopped trying to give my own beliefs and started trying to
just make the choice that was consistent with my earlier choices.
The question that bugged me the most was the one about God make the illogical
possible. They argued that if one allowed God to do that, that any rational
discussion of God is impossible and I have, as they say, "bit a bullet." I'm
not sure if I can accept that given an earlier question about God being able to
do anything. Especially given the non-rational conclusions of the quantum world
(such as an electron can move through two different spaces at the exact same
moment, or that an object can move from A to B without moving through the area
between A and B), formal rules of logic can seem unable to deal with an
inherently illogicaly concept of God.
Another question I had a problem with was the equating of God to the Loch Ness
monster in the rational or nonrational belief of them. They argued that if it
is rational of disbelieve the Loch Ness monster because there is no evidence
proving it exists. This argument was extended to God, but there are some
differences. For one, the implications for belief in the Monster are different
than the implications for belief in God. And, more importantly, there is
evidence for the existence of God, albeit unconvincing evidence. Another part
of this is that it forces one to accept unbelief as necessary for all items
which there is uncertain proof, which is a bit far for me. Belief in an
unproven theory would be deemed irrational, even if that theory later proved to
be true.
But it was basically fun. I just get the feeling some logician is sitting in a
chair pointing and laughing at me for getting so many wrong, when I'm left
thinking "who gave him the ability to judge something as 'logical' or not?"
-Lenny
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | The God Game!
|
| This one's for you, Dave! (URL) it counted me as being contradictory several times, though I'll maintain that either I wasn't contradictory or (in at least one case) the questions are rather flawed. But cute, nonetheless. DaveE (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
