Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tsyr" data-source="post: 64131" data-attributes="member: 354">The test has three problems, as I see it. I've went through it a few more times, varing answers a touch to account for different ways of taking the question...One: The questions are deliberatly designed to be extreamly vauge. In fact in some cases I found that the line between &quot;true&quot; and &quot;false&quot; was a so thin that I would probably never vote exactly the same away again. Two: The fact that there is only ever two possible answers for a question. Not enough.Three, and the biggest one: It asumes an absolute equality in the weight of answers. For example, the lochness monster/proof of god pair. Proof or disproof of the loch ness monster is a scientific possibility. In fact, it's a very REAL possibility, given the level of technology we have today. So continuing to believe it when it has been disproved (it hasn't, to my knowlede, but that's not the question) is stupid. However, by the very nature of the thing, it's impossible to disprove god. Proof is hard, but theoreticly possible (If, for example, God chose to show himself). But since you cannot prove god does not exist (Cannot prove a negative in this case...), it is not &quot;stupid&quot; to believe in God. But the questions don't take that into account.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tsyr, post: 64131, member: 354"] The test has three problems, as I see it. I've went through it a few more times, varing answers a touch to account for different ways of taking the question... One: The questions are deliberatly designed to be extreamly vauge. In fact in some cases I found that the line between "true" and "false" was a so thin that I would probably never vote exactly the same away again. Two: The fact that there is only ever two possible answers for a question. Not enough. Three, and the biggest one: It asumes an absolute equality in the weight of answers. For example, the lochness monster/proof of god pair. Proof or disproof of the loch ness monster is a scientific possibility. In fact, it's a very REAL possibility, given the level of technology we have today. So continuing to believe it when it has been disproved (it hasn't, to my knowlede, but that's not the question) is stupid. However, by the very nature of the thing, it's impossible to disprove god. Proof is hard, but theoreticly possible (If, for example, God chose to show himself). But since you cannot prove god does not exist (Cannot prove a negative in this case...), it is not "stupid" to believe in God. But the questions don't take that into account. [/QUOTE]

Verification