Comment by Graham E. Lau on February 23, 2010 at 12:00am

I took 1 hit and 3 bullets.

The questions are definitely rigged to catch you by logic errors, not as much in the idea but more in the wording of the sentence.

For instance, I took a hit by saying that we need certain evidence of a god or gods to believe in them, but they "caught" me by claiming that we don't have certain evidence for evolution. However, we do have certain evidence for evolution. As I've stated before, evolution is a fact. We know for certain, 100%, that evolution occurs. The theory of evolution deals with the modality of evolution; "how" evolution occurs. It's the theory that is not definite, not necessarily certain. The wording of their question does not allow for this disambiguation of modern knowledge.

However, it was still fun and totally worth the time.

Comment by Aric on February 23, 2010 at 12:38am

I got 2 bullets.
I agree with Graham. The question about evolution is poorly worded.

Comment by Jake W. Andrews on February 23, 2010 at 12:45am

I see what you mean, but I think the point of that question is to say that there is lots of evidence for evolution, but we are certainly not definitive (but pretty damn close). So I tried it again on question/statement

13.) It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

and you are right, the evolution question even says the following:

6.) Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

basically it is a loaded question, because sure scientists will argue over the finite details of certain evidence, but they are also saying it is True, then later on they widen that uncertainty gap to God, and frankly that is a misrepresentation of the questions foundation. But you should definitely get a theist to take it, or find a subtle way to make them take it with out knowing it! anyways Pass the site along to everyone, I think this might help close some holes in our own ideas and beliefs as well.

Comment by Matthew on February 23, 2010 at 1:26am

i soo need to do this when I get off of work.

Comment by Jake W. Andrews on February 23, 2010 at 1:30am

And please respond back with your results. I need a sample size about a few certain questions we are getting hung up on.

Comment by Mario Rodgers on February 23, 2010 at 4:54pm

I didn't do so well on this. I guess my bias in favor of evolution and against gods and religions was too strong. XD
I liked the do-it-yourself deity game.

Comment by Matthew on February 24, 2010 at 10:43pm

Bitten Bullet 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 bite the bullet.

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered True to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like 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 religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.


poorly worded questions for sure.

Comment by Matthew on February 24, 2010 at 10:45pm

IF there was something that you could call God, then that "thing" would be able to do logical impossiblities like square circles and 1+1=72, BUT if that "thing" did that, then they would undermind everyting that was done and "fabric" of mathamitics.

Comment