Philosophy games

[Manic Velocity]

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games

"Battleground God" is awesome.  

[Strod]

Lol that was great!

[Da6onet]

I only got one hit because of the following:

"You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not."

I have a problem with this analysis on the basis that there is an assumption that god is definable. To prove that there is or is not a god would require knowing what god is. As a pantheist, god = infinite. As I do not believe it is possible to define the infinite, it is therefore impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. The Loch Ness monster is definable, and therefore can be proven or disproved.

[Eroz]

I did the same as Dagonet, and bit the bullet on the rapist question. I don't know if I like the answer to those questions, This is why the rule was not to agree religion during Speech and Debate, until we were at that Catholic school.


Can anyone get pass question 15 without biting or hitting a bullet?

My best was 4 bullets and 2 bits, That was kind of hard to get.

[Manic Velocity]

I have a problem with this analysis on the basis that there is an assumption that god is definable. To prove that there is or is not a god would require knowing what god is. As a pantheist, god = infinite. As I do not believe it is possible to define the infinite, it is therefore impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. The Loch Ness monster is definable, and therefore can be proven or disproved.

I had the same problem.

In the doctrines of every major world religion, the concept of "God" never appears in its true form.  It takes the form of something that exists in the mortal world, so that mortals will be able to comprehend it.  The concept of "God" is undefineable.

You hit the nail on the head, Dag.  I'd suggest writing them an email.  I'm curious to see what they respond with.

[Anonymous]

Surely then you're just confusing the atheists with the agnostics?

[Tbone]

Lol, that was my only hit as well. Shenanagans I tell you!