Battleground God

[ciphergoth]

Most of you will already have played

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm


I played, and got the text

Earlier you claimed that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction without any external evidence for the truth of these convictions. But now you say that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. A firm, inner conviction can never be certain proof, since we know that people have firm inner convictions about things which are false.

I didn't mean just any conviction! I meant the Principle of Induction, which I believe to be a justified way to reach conclusions about the world even though evidence for it is impossible!

Oh yes, and as for the question "Torturing innocent people is morally wrong"...

Comments

[aegidian]

How did you do compared to other people?


* 6356 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 0 direct hits and bit 3 bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets.
* 35.97% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
* 7.72% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
* 50.24% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

The test isn't very consistent for anyone who consider Gods (plural) to have a variety of human-like powers and limitations and I resent having to bite bullets for asserting that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I answered consistently with the gods having various human attributes and didn't get any hits or bullets for it... On the absence of evidence thing, I think you and I actually have much the same beliefs, so my guess is you were reading more into words like "rational" than they intended (or I was reading in less than they intended, I supppose). Absence of evidence does mean that it's rational to believe in the absence of the whatever-it-is; it just doesn't follow that it's necessarily irrational to believe in its presence. I answered accordingly and came through those questions okay.