False. (Although I dislike that it doesn’t even bother to define “God” – but I’ll answer based on this definition: “The philosophy of religion recognizes the following as essential attributes of God:
• Omnipotence (limitless power)
• Omniscience (limitless knowledge)
• Eternity (God is not bound by time)
• Goodness (God is wholly benevolent)
• Unity (God cannot be divided)
• Simplicity (God is not composite)
• Incorporeality (God is not material)
• Immutability (God is not subject to change)
• Impassability (God is not affected)”
Quote:
God is a logical possibility (i.e., there is nothing contradictory about the very idea of God).
False.
Quote:
If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality.
False.
Quote:
Any entity that it is right to call God must be free to do anything.
True, at least based on the definition I’m using.
Quote:
Any entity that it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as is possible.
True, at least based on the definition I’m using.
Quote:
Any entity that it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.
True, at least based on the definition I’m using.
Quote:
While there might be argument over the details, evolution by natural selection is the correct explanation for the origin of species.
True, based on my interpretation of the evidence.
Quote:
It is justified to base one's belief about the external world - i.e., the world outside one's head - on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction.
False.
Quote:
Any entity that it is right to call God must know everything there is to know.
True, at least based on the definition I’m using.
Quote:
Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.
True, based on my standard.
Quote:
If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
True.
Quote:
People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.
False.
Quote:
If God exists She can make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.
True, at least based on the definition I’m using.
Quote:
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
True – it’s foolish to believe in a being that has properties that cannot be disproved.
Quote:
You may have taken a direct hit!
You claimed earlier that evolution by natural selection is the correct explanation for the origin of species. However, you have now stated 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 (please select):
- I'll bite the bullet that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.
Quote:
As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
False.
Quote:
The serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe, had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to kill prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in murdering his victims.
False. It isn’t rational to believe in a being that has properties that cannot be disproved.
Quote:
If God exists, She can create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.
True, at least based on the definition I’m using.
Quote:
You've just bitten a bullet!
In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (such as 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 own religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.
I disagree. That’s only true if God exists.
Quote:
It is justified to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no independent evidence that God exists.
False.
Quote:
Battleground God - Analysis
You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 2 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 86th percentile (i.e., 86% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 106345 people who have completed Battleground God.