Politiks

Maximus Vigilus · Fri May 04, 2007 12:26 am Battleground God: How firm are your beliefs?

Battleground God
Have a go at this, see how firm your beliefs actually are.

Ulyanov · Fri May 04, 2007 12:47 am

Quote: Plausibility Quotient

Plausibility Quotient = 1.0

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 1.0. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

*******************

What kind of God is that!?

The metaphysical engineers are happy to report that, to the best of their knowledge, the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. But they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. She is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?

We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths.
No, it certainly is not traditional.

Interesting, I like it, but of course, my score is better than I think a lot of people would get.

Maximus Vigilus · Fri May 04, 2007 12:55 am

Ulyanov wrote: Quote: Plausibility Quotient

Plausibility Quotient = 1.0

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 1.0. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

*******************

What kind of God is that!?

The metaphysical engineers are happy to report that, to the best of their knowledge, the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. But they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. She is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?

We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths.
No, it certainly is not traditional.

Interesting, I like it, but of course, my score is better than I think a lot of people would get.

Thats all very interesting but thats not what I wanted you to look at, that would be Do-It-Yourself-Deity. Scroll down a little on the page to take the actual test.

Ulyanov · Fri May 04, 2007 1:02 am

Oh, I thought that was what you meant. OK, the one thing I got is below.

Quote: Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed 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: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to take the direct hit.

Maximus Vigilus · Fri May 04, 2007 1:08 am

Quote: Oh, I thought that was what you meant. OK, the one thing I got is below.
No problem, alot of people get confused and do the Deity one.

(-S-) · Fri May 04, 2007 1:23 am

The test seems to categorise evolution and theism as two separate, non-related ideas. i.e. you either believe in one and not the other.

I believe in God, but I also believe in evolution. So I can't post my results, sorry.

Maximus Vigilus · Fri May 04, 2007 1:27 am

(-S-) wrote: The test seems to categorise evolution and theism as two separate, non-related ideas. i.e. you either believe in one and not the other.

I believe in God, but I also believe in evolution. So I can't post my results, sorry.

No, the test allows you to believe in both, it just does allow you to contradict previous things you agreed with.

(-S-) · Fri May 04, 2007 1:35 am

Well, anyone who takes part in it will be presented with a contradiction in their beliefs because it is impossible to prove the argument either ways.

Maximus Vigilus · Fri May 04, 2007 1:38 am

Not necessarily, its perfectly possible for all of your beliefs to not contradict one another.

(-S-) · Fri May 04, 2007 2:47 am

Quote: Question 14
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.

Answer: True

Test then said:

Quote: "You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist.

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers."

Comment: If there is no logical inconsistency in my answers then I am right and do not deserve to be penalised. If there was no logical consistency in my answers then I would deserve to be penalised. It is a twisted test which is intended to twist your own understanding of yourself.

For the record: I did not say that it is irrational to not believe in God - I said it is a matter of faith (answered "True") and therefore I am not claiming that it is wrong.

------

Quote: Question 16
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

Answer: A contradiction in terms of human understanding and therefore impossible to give a firm answer, regardless of what God could or could not do.

------

Final and Total Result:

Quote: You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten 1 bullet. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 373821 people have so far undertaken this activity.

----

I found that test very ill-worded, as per my above quotes. It was almost like an attempt to brainwash the partaker into retaliating against his opposite . i.e. The atheist would assume the test was put together by a theist and thus be so pissed off from the test that he would attack the next theist he meets and vice versa.

Not a good test, if you ask me.

Maximus Vigilus · Fri May 04, 2007 2:57 am

Quote: It was almost like an attempt to brainwash the partaker into retaliating against his opposite . i.e. The atheist would assume the test was put together by a theist and thus be so pissed off from the test that he would attack the next theist he meets and vice versa.

Not a good test, if you ask me.

Ha, I never said it was a good test I just said it was possible to get through it without contradicting, in fact I was waiting for someone to say what you did above, I personally hate the test, it tries to make you conform to their own statements almost forcing you into contradicting yourself. Twists the answers you give to oddly worded questions to trick you, also depending on how you answered it sometimes simply assumes things based on your assumptions giving no option to explain a choice.

Citizen187 · Fri May 04, 2007 7:52 pm

It doesn't give you a chance to explain it, but you can't really expect that from an internet test. It is quite annoying though.
FTR, one bullet and no direct hits.

Ekaf · Fri May 04, 2007 9:43 pm

I didn't even take the test, I know my beliefs aren't very firm. There are too many possibilities, I don't know which one is the actual.

Maximus Vigilus · Sat May 05, 2007 9:24 pm

The only concept I do like about the test is that many have beliefs that do not belong together or contradict another idea they may have.