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

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And what do you mean by "justified"? Do you mean in the universal, objective sense? Or do you mean in the "internally consistent" sense upon which this quiz itself is based? And if the quiz is designed to let you define the concept of "justified" for yourself, then how can you make a fair choice when you are allowed to define some things but not others?

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I went for "internally consistent". I'm not sure I believe in an objective universal kind of justification; or at least if there is one, I don't believe we have a reliable way of knowing what it is.