log in | register | forums
Show:
Go:
Forums
Username:

Password:

User accounts
Register new account
Forgot password
Forum stats
List of members
Search the forums

Advanced search
Recent discussions
- !OBrowse reviewed (News:10)
- Aemulor (Gen:16)
- DDE reaches release 28 and above (News:)
- Elesar quicks dispels stormy clouds (News:2)
- RISC OS London Show 2017 - Notes from the talks (News:2)
- RISC OS London Show 2017 (News:)
- RISC OS London Show 2017 - Pictures (News:)
- October News (News:2)
- Retrospective thoughts on 12 months of Titanium ownership (News:4)
- RISC OS London Show 2017 (News:1)
Latest postings RSS Feeds
RSS 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.9
Atom 0.3
Misc RDF | CDF
Site Search
 
Article archives
Acorn Arcade forums: The Playpen: God
 
  God
  This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list.
 
Phil Mellor Message #44498, posted by monkeyson2 at 01:18, 16/7/2003
monkeyson2Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler

Posts: 12380
I'm a big fan of Christianity - I like God. I think he must just get bored, listening to Christians twenty four hours a day in a million different languages. He's trying to run the universe up there. He's up there thinking: "I shall move this star, so the light bounces off the hemisphere of the planet and sends a cascading rainbow of spectrum colours across the universe for all to see and then I - what? No, really - enjoy your meal. Don't mention it."

(C) Boothby Graffoe
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Scholes Message #44510, posted by mavhc at 10:06, 16/7/2003, in reply to message #44498
Member
Posts: 660
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

0 direct hits, 1 bullet bitten (mmmm, crunchy)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Phil Mellor Message #44512, posted by monkeyson2 at 10:31, 16/7/2003, in reply to message #44510
monkeyson2Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler

Posts: 12380
That is excellent :)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Tim Fountain Message #44519, posted by alpha at 11:23, 16/7/2003, in reply to message #44512
Forum bod
Posts: 569
That's actually quite clever.

1 direct hit and 1 bitten bullet here.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Richard Goodwin Message #44529, posted by rich at 14:47, 16/7/2003, in reply to message #44519
Rich
Webmaster
The Icon Bar

Posts: 6765
I got to about question 12 with no hits before I got bored and went back to b3ta.
________
RichGCheers,
Rich.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #44531, posted by moss at 14:59, 16/7/2003, in reply to message #44529

Posts: 9346
Hmmm. This needs *serious* thought...
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Matthew Somerville Message #44555, posted by Matthew at 23:13, 16/7/2003, in reply to message #44510
Matthew

Posts: 519
0 direct hits, 1 bullet bitten (mmmm, crunchy)
Same here, and I think my bitten bullet is logically consistent :)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #44556, posted by moss at 23:24, 16/7/2003, in reply to message #44555

Posts: 9346
0 direct hits, 1 bullet bitten (mmmm, crunchy)
Same here, and I think my bitten bullet is logically consistent :)
Exactly the same here :E

You're under fire!

You don't think that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice:

Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
I don't see the problem...
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Simon Wilson Message #44557, posted by ksattic at 00:06, 17/7/2003, in reply to message #44556
ksattic
Finally, an avatar!

Posts: 1288
But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory
I don't see the problem...
There's the problem. You need to believe in evolution and accept that you share a common ancestor with the monkey, chimp and ape. ;)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #44574, posted by moss at 15:54, 17/7/2003, in reply to message #44557

Posts: 9346
But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory
I don't see the problem...
There's the problem. You need to believe in evolution and accept that you share a common ancestor with the monkey, chimp and ape. ;)
Indeed. My reason for rejecting evolutionary theory is that my opinion is you can't *prove* anything :P

(I do actually think it's likely to be mostly true; but I certainly wouldn't swear it to be true like the question asked me to. I can't see any contradiction; indeed, if I blindly believed in it, that's almost like treating science as God, which would be a contradiction. If you see what I mean. Erm, I need a lie down...)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Tony Haines Message #44606, posted by Loris at 16:59, 18/7/2003, in reply to message #44574
madbanHa ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
Indeed. My reason for rejecting evolutionary theory is that my opinion is you can't *prove* anything :P

(I do actually think it's likely to be mostly true; but I certainly wouldn't swear it to be true like the question asked me to. I can't see any contradiction; indeed, if I blindly believed in it, that's almost like treating science as God, which would be a contradiction. If you see what I mean. Erm, I need a lie down...)
Did it ask you to absolutely swear to it? It doesn't seem to:

Question 6
Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.
You can believe something because of the evidence.. That is, not believe it blindly. And scientists are free to change their minds if new evidence comes along. :)


My original score was around 3 (I made some mistakes I could correct easily)

But the one which I'd quibble with was about not being able to rationally discuss god.
I'd indicated that as defined god would be able to do 'anything'. As such this would mean she could make 1+1=72. But I see this as a problem of definition - I don't believe such a being could exist, so I'm not sure I'm logically inconsistent, only that those who defined God are.

But since the authors go out of their way to explain you may not have the problems they indicate, I'm not bothered.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #44607, posted by moss at 18:26, 18/7/2003, in reply to message #44606

Posts: 9346
Did it ask you to absolutely swear to it? It doesn't seem to:

Question 6
Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.
You can believe something because of the evidence.. That is, not believe it blindly. And scientists are free to change their minds if new evidence comes along. :)
I can't say that evolutionary theory is "essentially true". I can say it is "probably true", though ;)

But the one which I'd quibble with was about not being able to rationally discuss god.
I'd indicated that as defined god would be able to do 'anything'. As such this would mean she could make 1+1=72. But I see this as a problem of definition - I don't believe such a being could exist, so I'm not sure I'm logically inconsistent, only that those who defined God are.
I had a problem with all that, too :(
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Scholes Message #44609, posted by mavhc at 19:06, 18/7/2003, in reply to message #44574
Member
Posts: 660
Indeed. My reason for rejecting evolutionary theory is that my opinion is you can't *prove* anything :P

(I do actually think it's likely to be mostly true; but I certainly wouldn't swear it to be true like the question asked me to. I can't see any contradiction; indeed, if I blindly believed in it, that's almost like treating science as God, which would be a contradiction. If you see what I mean. Erm, I need a lie down...)
That's the point, you can't prove anything in science. You can't disprove anything either, but that's a whole other story.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/godfaq.htm
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #44610, posted by moss at 19:13, 18/7/2003, in reply to message #44609

Posts: 9346
Fair enough; but the question is one of degree. I think it's far more likely that evolutionary theory isn't true, than it is for apples to start rising tomorrow.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jeffrey Lee Message #44619, posted by Phlamethrower at 21:49, 18/7/2003, in reply to message #44529
PhlamethrowerHot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff

Posts: 15057
I got to about question 12 with no hits before I got bored and went back to b3ta.
I got to question 12 before I started getting loads of hits :|

1 for saying an atheist is going on faith when earlier I'd said that the loch ness monster doesn't exist. But rationality and faith go hand in hand, since it's impossible to prove anything. Those people who believe that they're the only real person in the world and everyone else is an illusion are right.

1 for saying the rapist was justified when earlier I said people should go on fact rather than inner convictions (or whatever it was). But I'm disputing that because what one person sees as the world could be different from what some other person does - e.g. the rapist could have seen a world which promotes rape, while normal people don't. Hence he has nothing else to base his judgements on than his own view, and so must have been right.

1 for saying that god couldn't make square circles and 1+1=72, which I'm disputing because squares, circles and maths are all things which we've invented or inferred from our surroundings. What would stop someone swapping circles with rectangles? Then square circles are perfectly possible, because a square is a type of circle.

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.
Depends on how rational rationality is.

That's the point, you can't prove anything in science. You can't disprove anything either, but that's a whole other story.
Indeed. Some parts of the game don't seem to have realised that. Now if the questions all had 'maybe' answers....
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #44624, posted by moss at 22:00, 18/7/2003, in reply to message #44619

Posts: 9346
Now if the questions all had 'maybe' answers....
That's what I thought. No doubt the game's designers would view that as a copout.

1) Maybe
2) Maybe
3) Maybe

etc...
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Scholes Message #44625, posted by mavhc at 22:04, 18/7/2003, in reply to message #44619
Member
Posts: 660
I got to about question 12 with no hits before I got bored and went back to b3ta.
I got to question 12 before I started getting loads of hits :|

1 for saying an atheist is going on faith when earlier I'd said that the loch ness monster doesn't exist. But rationality and faith go hand in hand, since it's impossible to prove anything. Those people who believe that they're the only real person in the world and everyone else is an illusion are right.
Not all opinions are equal however, lots of things are more likely than other things. Rationality and proof aren't the same thing. Lack of evidence against isn't evidence for.


1 for saying the rapist was justified when earlier I said people should go on fact rather than inner convictions (or whatever it was). But I'm disputing that because what one person sees as the world could be different from what some other person does - e.g. the rapist could have seen a world which promotes rape, while normal people don't. Hence he has nothing else to base his judgements on than his own view, and so must have been right.
It's not rational to see that world though.


1 for saying that god couldn't make square circles and 1+1=72, which I'm disputing because squares, circles and maths are all things which we've invented or inferred from our surroundings. What would stop someone swapping circles with rectangles? Then square circles are perfectly possible, because a square is a type of circle.
That's the one I got. FAQ Q6 explains it more.
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.
Depends on how rational rationality is.
Very. Everything is built on the assumption that things happen logically, cause and effect etc, without that there's nothing to argue: One day 1+1=2, the next 1+1=3, the next Windows doesn't suck.

Indeed. Some parts of the game don't seem to have realised that. Now if the questions all had 'maybe' answers....
No, they just assume you understand that and what it means to believe something rationally.

You can't prove for certain that the moon isn't made of cheese, but you can prove it's a stupid idea and so unlikely it's not worth bothering about.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Tony Haines Message #44642, posted by Loris at 17:22, 19/7/2003, in reply to message #44607
madbanHa ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
Did it ask you to absolutely swear to it? It doesn't seem to:

Question 6
Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.
You can believe something because of the evidence.. That is, not believe it blindly. And scientists are free to change their minds if new evidence comes along. :)
I can't say that evolutionary theory is "essentially true". I can say it is "probably true", though ;)
Heh, well yes, obviously. But given such questions, I think you have to consider which way you 'lean'. So 'probably true' approximates to true rather than false.
Consider which way you would answer the 'inverted' statement:

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

...

Actually, just looking at the phrasing of the real question six, I think there is a case that the answer you give should be 'true' provided you agree with the logic of evolutionary theory. The question isn't "Do you think life on Earth has developed by evolution?", but "Do you agree with the logic of the theory of evolution?". (Myself I'd add on "by natural selection" to be completely clear.)

If you continue to claim that you must answer false to this question because you cannot 'prove' it is true, then you must answer false to many other questions.
Please answer this question:

I cannot answer 'true' to anything unless I can conclusively prove it is definitely true.

Warning, trouble ahead! :)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Simon Wilson Message #44644, posted by ksattic at 05:02, 20/7/2003, in reply to message #44609
ksattic
Finally, an avatar!

Posts: 1288
That's the point, you can't prove anything in science. You can't disprove anything either, but that's a whole other story.
I disagree. Can you prove that it's not possible to prove or disprove anything? ;)

Sorry, I'm being pedantic now. :D
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Scholes Message #44669, posted by mavhc at 17:57, 20/7/2003, in reply to message #44644
Member
Posts: 660
That's the point, you can't prove anything in science. You can't disprove anything either, but that's a whole other story.
I disagree. Can you prove that it's not possible to prove or disprove anything?
Yes
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Byron Ray Message #122293, posted by Taz001 at 13:27, 16/4/2013, in reply to message #44498
Member
Posts: 1
I haven't heard that in years!!!!
Great post!
Do you know, by any chance, what show it came from? I've been looking for it for ages!
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Simon Willcocks Message #122294, posted by Stoppers at 10:06, 17/4/2013, in reply to message #44510
Member
Posts: 278
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

0 direct hits, 1 bullet bitten (mmmm, crunchy)
I just get redirected to the home page at http://www.philosophers.co.uk/

The rest of the thread makes little sense to me. unhappy
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #122295, posted by filecore at 12:34, 17/4/2013, in reply to message #122294

Posts: 3867
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

0 direct hits, 1 bullet bitten (mmmm, crunchy)
I just get redirected to the home page at http://www.philosophers.co.uk/

The rest of the thread makes little sense to me. unhappy
Fail. Try this: http://web.archive.org/web/20040622084317/http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Philip Webster Message #122301, posted by pwx at 10:29, 18/4/2013, in reply to message #122295
Member
Posts: 227
Fail. Try this: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm">http://web.archive.org/web/20040622084317/http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
This fails as soon as a form submission is made. Is there a flat version of this anywhere?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Philip Webster Message #122302, posted by pwx at 10:37, 18/4/2013, in reply to message #122301
Member
Posts: 227
Fail. Try this: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm">http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm">http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm">http://web.archive.org/web/20040622084317/http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm</a>
This fails as soon as a form submission is made. Is there a flat version of this anywhere?
Never mind: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
David Heath Message #122304, posted by HeathHayle at 17:40, 18/4/2013, in reply to message #44498
Member
Posts: 142
I'm a big fan of Christianity - I like God. I think he must just get bored, listening to Christians twenty four hours a day in a million different languages. He's trying to run the universe up there. He's up there thinking: "I shall move this star, so the light bounces off the hemisphere of the planet and sends a cascading rainbow of spectrum colours across the universe for all to see and then I - what? No, really - enjoy your meal. Don't mention it."

(C) Boothby Graffoe
LOL! liked the joke never herd that one before
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Simon Willcocks Message #122305, posted by Stoppers at 18:28, 18/4/2013, in reply to message #122302
Member
Posts: 278
Fail. Try this:
This fails as soon as a form submission is made. Is there a flat version of this anywhere?
Never mind: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php
That's better, thanks.

You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullet. 568114 people have so far undertaken this activity.
I'm one of the 46.11%, but didn't manage the 8.18%, who probably cheated smile

Over half a million people. That's a lot!

[Edited by Stoppers at 19:29, 18/4/2013]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Paul Vernon Message #122306, posted by PaulV at 21:25, 18/4/2013, in reply to message #122305
Member
Posts: 135
I'm one of the 46.11%, but didn't manage the 8.18%, who probably cheated smile
Well I'm one of the 8.18% and I didn't cheat big grin

The thing is, if you read the questions thoroughly and consider the logic of what is being asked, there is only one answer for each question that makes sense.

It occurred to me early on in the process that if you let your experience or beliefs inform your answers instead of pure logic then it would be very easy to answer the questions in a completely different way and I can understand why people would.

Paul
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #122307, posted by filecore at 07:03, 19/4/2013, in reply to message #122305

Posts: 3867
I'm one of the 46.11%
Me too, I took one direct hit and bit one bullet.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Lee Shepherd Message #122735, posted by leeshep at 16:33, 27/10/2013, in reply to message #122307
Member
Posts: 23
No direct hits and no bullets....
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Pages (2): 1 > >|

Acorn Arcade forums: The Playpen: God