TuringAI Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I found a page called "Battleground God" and I found it interesting. The link is right beneath this line if you want to go there. http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm Apparently I did fairly well on this test, but I wonder, do you think it is a good quiz? Do you think we, as Objectivists, could come up with something like this, except for Objectivism as a whole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 That would be an undertaking. In undertaking it, one would be surely enhance their grasp of Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Zero direct hits and bit zero bullets. Yay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 It's a lousy test, though one of the better lousy tests that I've seen. Let's look at Q3: "Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything". The question is invalid, because it contains a false presupposition, that assigning a particular name to a being affects its metaphysical nature. Ridiculous!! As we know, you must first establish that there is an existent, then you must determine its identity, and at some much later point, you must determine a conceptual label for that existent. Since there is no such existent, nothing else in this chain of actions is meaningful. The problem is that there does exist a hypothetical, purely fiat concept "God", which by definition is omnipotent. But such a being does not exist. The question is thus misleading. If the question is "Is God defined as a being that is free to do anything", you would answer one way. If the question is "Is God free to do anything", you would answer the opposite way. Fer fun, take the test a few times and chance the answers on the first part. There are no wrong answers on the first part. Thus the overall logic is invalid because it is compatible with contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Zero direct hits and bit zero bullets. Yay? No direct hits but apparently I bit two bullets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffS Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 I'm with David on this: it's a horrible test. One of the "no wrong answer" questions was: "Evolutionary theory may be false in some of its details, but it's basically right." I answered "false," since evolutionary theory is not false in any of its "details" - whatever the test constructor believes that means. Later, I was given the choice of picking between claiming the scientists are wrong, or my beliefs are in contradiction. I stopped taking the test after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.