Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MythandLore" data-source="post: 64091" data-attributes="member: 180">The should have called it the LAME GAME.Sorry bubba, this game was lame.I kept track of what happend to me with note pad so you caould see what happend.Rules of the gameThe aim of the game is to get across the intellectual battleground unscathed. There are two types of injury you can suffer.A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats.First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.Such possibilities are unavoidable given the constraints on the game. We merely ask that you do not take it personally if you suffer a direct hit and don't get too frustrated if the choices we offer you sometimes seem to force you into a choice you'd rather not make.You have to bite a bullet if your choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. There is more room for disagreement here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike others as normal. So, again, please do not get too upset if we judge you have bitten a bullet. Maybe it is our world-view which is warped!_______________________No injuries so far, but watch out! Danger ahead!You are in good health! You're doing brilliantly!You are in good health! Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done!You are in good health! You've just taken a direct hit!Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction even when there is no external evidence for the truth of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!You've just taken a direct hit!You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.You've just had a near miss!You claim that it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions. But earlier you stated that the serial rapist, Peter Sutcliffe, was not justified in believing, purely on the basis of inner-convictions, that he correctly discerned God's intentions in his raping and murdering of prostitutes. In order to reconcile these claims you need to show what makes the same form of justification acceptable in one circumstance and unacceptable in another. Perhaps you can do this. But until you can show where the difference lies, you are in danger of taking a direct hit!Oh dear! You're taking rather too much damage! You have reached the end!Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.You took 2 direct hits and you have bitten 0 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets. 10212 people have so far undertaken this activity.Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.Battleground AnalysisCongratulations!You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.The fact that you progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting no bullets suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. 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, this did not occur, and consequently, you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!How did you do compared to other people?10212 people have completed this activity to date. You suffered 2 direct hits and bit 0 bullets. This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets.36.10% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal. 7.56% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour. 50.61% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.</blockquote>

Verification