I'm late to this topic, and am curious, has anybody recently evaluated how close they are to what the OP was calling out -- regardless of which side of the fence you're on?
Still, I'm going to step back a bit... way back! To a quiz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
Those who are curious to see how rational their views of God are may like to check out The Philosophers' Magazine's "Battleground God" at http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php. Sure, it isn't the final word on one's rationality, but is is a fun quiz. I took it years ago and if I remember correctly I answered all but one of the questions "correctly." |
I started the quiz, and stopped, dead stuck at "Question" 3!
3. "Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything."
I think I am supposed to answer "true" here, previous stating a belief God, and morality existing
only if God exists. But this is not true as worded. It would be
illogical to conclude God can do
anything. An infinite, personal, loving God who created an ordered and logical Universe would himself be logical. And there are lots of paradoxes wrapped up in that one word "anything."
Okay, I decided to continue anyway after answering "false"...
Lo and behold, I am later presented with the logical fallacy: "If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72." See the fallacy? Of course God is not a she!
Okay, the real fallacy is suggesting that God can do
anything, even make illogical/pararoxical things happen.
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
More specific wording. A definite "no" for me, who believes in the Christian God. Not because I am one of blind faith. But because of the wording.
We are not dealing with irrevocable proof but evidence. In discussing God, it's more like being in a courtroom presenting evidence than it is like being in a laboratory observing the natural world in a search for equations and proofs. (I wonder how much this clarification would help in this thread... oh... nevermind!
)
I bet a lot of people feel compelled to answer "true" just because we have begun to abuse terms like "proof" and "faith" until they don't mean what they mean. (Proof is used in place of evidence, faith in place of blind faith.)
And much to my shock... I'll be damned!... I took zero hits, and zero bullets!
I swear I took the test as I wrote this post. I was going to quit at the "free to do anything" question, which compelled my post, because the wording was so specific, I figured they didn't know what they were doing. I'm glad I continued. Not so much for myself (okay, I'm excited!), but to know that there
is a site on the Internet that understands that terms have specific meanings -- and I believe also understands we've been abusing those meanings -- in a logical discussion!
-Pie