Got this in my inbox this morning - http://www.philosophers.co.uk/god.htm
what fun! haha
Zero hits, one bullet to bite (on Q. 16).
Congratulations!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 only one bullet 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 bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
'Luthon64
Zero hits, three bullets
Bitten Bullet 1You answered True to questions 4 and 12.
These answers generated the following response:
You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin… yet You’ve said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So You’ve got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to bite the bullet.
She can do anything. Otherwise she isn’t God. The contradictions aren’t mine, it is inherent in omniscience.
Bitten Bullet 2You 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 bite the bullet.
I’m sorry but there is certain, irrevocable proof that evolution happens. We observe it. To deny it, is to deny observable reality. There is no evidence for the existence of god. Any God. If there were evidence we’d need certain, irrevocable proof that it is in fact God and not some uber alien with super science for instance.
Bitten Bullet 3You answered True to Question 16.
This answer generated the following response:
You’ve just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
Fine then. I don’t ever want to discuss or debate it again. So if theists could kindly shut the fuck up about God, I’d appreciate it. Or I will be forced to continue to show them the error of their ways.
2 Bullets. And yes I’m also not happy about the evolution vs god thing. How more certain can we be of evolution really?
and this:
You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
Yes and one of the earlier questions asked whether a hypothetical God can do anything. To this I said yes. Breaking the laws of the universe would be an “anything” in that category just as walking on water is.
Congratulations!You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
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.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!
;D