Battleground God - Artig liten test på nettet

[Imlekk]

Jeg snublet over dette litt eksperimentet.

 

Eksperimentet går ut på at du må ta et standpunkt til diverse påstander, og spillet sjekker om de er konsistent i dine oppfatninger.

 

For min del så var det et par områder jeg bommet på, som jeg legger under spoileren. Jeg anbefaler at man prøver seg før man leser responsen jeg (eller eventuelt andre som svarer her) fikk.

 

 

 

You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 2 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 77th percentile (i.e., 77% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 198 people who have completed Battleground God.

Yay! Bedre enn snittet, men jeg hadde selvfølgelig håpet på å unngå å gå på noen blemmer.

 

Bitten Bullet 1

 

You answered "True" to questions 7 and 14, which generated the following response:

 

You claimed earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now stated 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 to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet of supposing that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution; or (b) take a direct hit, accepting that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

 

You chose to bite the bullet.

Jeg tror ikke jeg helt skjønte forskjellen på å bli truffet, eller bite the bullet. Svaret mitt her var, innser jeg nå, feil. Så på den lyse siden så fikk jeg reflektert litt rundt spørsmålet, og klarert mitt standpunkt (som nå ikke er det samme som jeg svarte her, nettopp på grunn av konsekvensen av svaret).

 

Bitten Bullet 2

 

You answered "True" to Question 17, which generated the following response:

 

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (such as 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 own religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

Svaret mitt her var som en konsekvens av dersom man har en allmektig gud så mener jeg at denne guden enten selv er begrenset av logikken (og derfor ikke allmektig), eller skapte de logiske reglene, som denne skapningen da burde kunne bryte.

 

[2ball_]

Den var artig!

 

 

 

 

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe 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 occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Der var de EKSTREMT lure med ordene. Gikk rett i fella.

 

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to Question 17, which generated the following response:

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (such as 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 own religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

Thank you for completing this preliminary version of Battleground God.

Den var litt irriterende Har blandet samme to definisjoner av gud. Denne begynner og dør helt klart ved det ene spørsmålet og henger ikke sammen med de andre spørsmålene jeg har svart på.

 

 

 

megairriterende de feilene jeg fikk. Liker ikke veldig godt å ikke kunne forsvare meg når jeg har sagt noe uten å tenke meg om

 

Edit:

Den fella:

 

 

Of course, you may go along with thinkers such as Kierkegaard and believe that religious belief does not need to be rationally consistent. But that takes us beyond the scope of this activity, which is about the extent to which your beliefs are rationally consistent, not whether this is a good or a bad thing.

Endret 1. september 2014 av 2ball_

[ChiaroScuro]

Filosofi er bare tull. Kloke mennesker burde finne på noe bedre å gjøre.

 

Jeg vet at dersom Gud ble bevist i morge, så ville jeg tro på ham. Det tror jeg ikke at vil skje, og derfor er noen av mine svar bevisst feil, men de representerer min virkelighet.

 

Jeg fikk riktignok færre bom enn gjennomsnittet, men det var fordi jeg, på enkelte spørsmål, svarte taktisk og ikke sannt.

[Imlekk]

 

 

 

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe 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 occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Der var de EKSTREMT lure med ordene. Gikk rett i fella.

 

Virkelig? Jeg syns det der var en av de mer åpenbare sammenhengende i quizzen. Men du sier det kanskje om min første bommert ovenfor Mon tro om ikke det sier noe om vårt perspektiv på dette. Ut av nysgjerrighet, er du religiøs?

 

Godt å se at jeg ikke er den eneste som fikk svi for det siste punktet!

Endret 1. september 2014 av Imlekk

[2ball_]

Nei, ikke religiøs.

 

 

 

Jeg vet at dersom Gud ble bevist i morge, så ville jeg tro på ham.

Enig med dette.

 

Vet ikke hav jeg tenke på når jeg svarte på det spørmålet Tenkte vel det at å totalt utelukke at det finnes en eller annen form for gud, kan vi vel aldri gjøre. Men sannsyligheten for at det finnes en gud er uhyre liten, tilsvarende nei.

 

Loch ness er derimot på litt mindre skala om man skal se praktisk på det. Sannsyligheten er, om mulig, enda mindre.

 

At det finens en gud som fremstilt i noe form for 'normal' religion? Nei.

 

Konklusjon: Gud? kanskje, men nei. Religion? Gud forby.

Endret 1. september 2014 av 2ball_

[Gjest Bruker-95147]

You navigated the battlefield suffering 5 hits and biting 1 bullet, which represents an overall performance at the 1th percentile (i.e., 1% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 274 people who have completed Battleground God.

[Imlekk]

You navigated the battlefield suffering 5 hits and biting 1 bullet, which represents an overall performance at the 1th percentile (i.e., 1% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 274 people who have completed Battleground God.[/size]

...seriøst? Når jeg så at du hadde kommentert her så tenkte jeg at enten så hadde du ingen bommerter, eller... mange. Er det lov å spørre hva slags treff du fikk?

[Gjest Bruker-95147]

 

You navigated the battlefield suffering 5 hits and biting 1 bullet, which represents an overall performance at the 1th percentile (i.e., 1% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 274 people who have completed Battleground God.[/size]

...seriøst? Når jeg så at du hadde kommentert her så tenkte jeg at enten så hadde du ingen bommerter, eller... mange. Er det lov å spørre hva slags treff du fikk?

 

 

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 8 and 14, which generated the following response:

You stated earlier that it is justified to base one's belief about the external world on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction.. But now you say that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. A firm, inner conviction can never be certain, irrevocable proof, because we know that people have firm inner convictions about things which are false.

Direct Hit 2

You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe 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 occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Direct Hit 3

You answered "True" to Question 8 and "False" to Question 16, which generated the following response:

Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not in fact think that a belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

Direct Hit 4

You answered "True" to questions 4 and 6 and "False" to Question 17, which generated the following response:

You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in earlier answers you indicated that any entity that it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most, but not all, philosophers and theologians, and contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.

Direct Hit 5

You answered "True" to Question 14 and "True" to Question 18, which generated the following response:

You claimed earlier that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that She exists, but now you say it is justified to believe in God just if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists. However, a firm inner conviction can never be certain proof - and many people have firm inner convictions about things about which they are wrong (such as the guilt or innocence of suspects, for example). So, by your own lights, your last answer was a foolish one!

 

Recap of your Bitten Bullet

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to Question 1 and "False" to Question 2, which generated the following response:

How can it be claimed that God exists, yet God is a logical impossibility? Indeed, many would see this as a direct hit, because it is usually held that a logical impossibility cannot exist. But we would rather say this view requires biting a nasty bullet, for if you really believe logical impossibilities can exist, what criteria can you use to determine whether anything in this world is possible or not?

Thank you for completing this preliminary version of Battleground God.

[Imlekk]

Ouch. Hva syns du om responsen i analysen der?

[Gjest Bruker-95147]

Ouch. Hva syns du om responsen i analysen der?

 

Hva er det som forbauser - det så jeg allerede ved hvordan første spørsmål var formulert - så hvis det er nok til å dømme meg som bare enda en religiøs surrebukk, så gjerne for meg

 

noe annet er at det som litt uventet, er at du hadde sett for deg et annet resultat - jeg kunne så klart planlagt resultatet, men siden jeg anser testen som på grensen til kindergarten nivå, er jeg helt avslappet

[Aiven]

«The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!»

Endret 2. september 2014 av Aiven

[Gjest Bruker-95147]

det er ganske søtt i grunn

[Civilix]

 

Battleground God - Analysis

 

You navigated the battlefield suffering 1 hit and biting 2 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 48th percentile (i.e., 48% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 961 people who have completed Battleground God.

Det var en artig test, men merket at språket ble en utfordring for meg

 

 

 

Recap of your Direct Hit

 

Direct Hit 1

 

You answered "True" to questions 7 and 14, which generated the following response:

 

You claimed earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now stated 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 to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet of supposing that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution; or (b) take a direct hit, accepting that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

 

You chose to take the direct hit.

Her skulle jeg ha lest nøyere, siden jeg tenkte bare på eksisterende bevis og ikke hva spørsmålet egentlig var. Derfor tok jeg gladlig ett direct hit.

 

 

 

Recap of your Bitten Bullets

 

Bitten Bullet 1

 

You answered "Don't Know" to Question 1 and "False" to Question 2, which generated the following response:

 

It is strange to say that God is a logical impossibility, but you don’t know whether God exists. If God is a logical impossibility, then surely She can’t exist, and so you know that She doesn’t exist.

Siden jeg svarte dont know på spørsmål 1 er det ingen riktig svar på spørsmål 2 slik jeg ser det, hvis man ikke vet blir det feil å si både at det er logisk mulig og umulig at gud eksisterer. Dette henger sammen med neste feil jeg gjorde.

 

 

Bitten Bullet 2

 

You answered "True" to Question 17, which generated the following response:

 

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (such as 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 own religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

Hvis gud eksisterer tror jeg at det er en gud som kan bryte logikk, det er eneste måte jeg kan forsvare en potensiells guds eksistens. Men vertfall tar disse to feilene og viser at jeg er konsistent i mine feil, noe som vel var målet her

[Cair Paravel]

Battleground God - Analysis

 

You navigated the battlefield suffering 3 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 24th percentile (i.e., 24% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 1015 people who have completed Battleground God.

 

Spørsmålsformulering og argumentasjon viser veldig tydeleg at testskaparane har ein proateistisk agenda. At kristne får fleire hits i ein slik test er difor ganske naturleg, og seier lite om inkonsistent argumentasjon. Den konsekvent feilaktige bruken av pronomenet She om Gud er også veldig forstyrrande.

 

 

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 3 and 4 and "False" to Question 13, which generated the following response:

You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, She cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then She could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.

 

Dersom det var så enkelt at Gud kunne velgje kva som er synd og kva som ikkje er synd, ville det ikkje vere naudsynt for Jesus å døy for våre synder. Spørsmålet gir inntrykk av at det er tilfeldig kva ting som er synd, noko som er uriktig då all synd har til felles at den er i strid med både Guds natur og Guds gode plan for kvar enkelt. Denne plan er ein refleksjon av Guds natur, han har gitt oss ei morallov for å kunne skilje mellom rett og gale. ( http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/heathwood/pdf/lewis_rightandwrong.pdf )

 

Viss så Gud skulle velgje å gjere det syndige syndfritt, ville ikkje det like fullt ført til dei same negative konsekvensane som før? Dersom det var ei dyd å stele, ville ikkje offeret like fullt føle sorg over tapet av sin eignelut? Eit anna problem ville vere korleis Gud kunne akseptert handlingar imot sin natur og framleis vere heilag? Som vi veit er Guds natur konstant, han er den same i går og idag (Hebr. 13:8).

 

Det er like fullt uråd å tenkje seg nokon form for moral i eit hypotetisk scenario utan Gud. Alt godt kjem frå Gud, alt vondt er ganske enkelt fråvere av Guds godleik. I eit slikt scenario ville heller ikkje skaparverket eksistert, ei heller vi, og å diskutere moral ville i så fall ikkje hatt nokon praktisk implikasjon.

 

 

Direct Hit 2

You answered "True" to Question 8 and "False" to Question 16, which generated the following response:

Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not in fact think that a belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

 

Det er skilnad mellom å rettferdigjere ei indre overbevising, og å rettferdiggjere handlingar på basis av denne overbevisinga. Det første er trusfridom, det andre kan gå langt inn i ekstremisme. Med rettferdiggjere meiner eg her aksept av mennesket sin rett til å nytte sin frie vilje til å tru på kva det vil, ikkje aksept av Satan sin bruk av religion til å halde menneske i fangenskap. Det er også klart eg ville rettferdiggjere kristne som utfører heilage handlingar i strid med gjeldande lovverk, ettersom Guds Ord står over sekulære lover.

 

 

Direct Hit 3

You answered "True" to questions 4 and 6 and "False" to Question 17, which generated the following response:

You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in earlier answers you indicated that any entity that it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most, but not all, philosophers and theologians, and contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.

 

Guds allmakt er ikkje mindre fordi enkelte logiske paradoks er irrasjonelle. Ein sirkel kan per definisjon ikkje ha kantar. Ein rektangulær sirkel er difor per definisjon ikkje-eksisterande, og kan difor ikkje skapast korkje av Gud eller menneske. At dei fleste teologar skulle avvise Guds allmakt på grunn av eit så kjent argument, har eg vanskeleg for å tru.

Endret 4. september 2014 av Cair Paravel

[GXT]

Hvordan ville du laget testen, da?

 

Et faktum er jo at for mange med et utenforperspektiv virker det som om religionen inneholder mange selvmotsigelser.

 

Og det er forsåvidt ingen riktige svar så langt jeg kunne se. Det meste er godt begrunnet etter min mening. Lite irrasjonelt å se i fasiten.

[Aiven]

*Snip*

 

 

Godt svart, takk!

[Fustasjeopphengsforkobling]

Først - enig med Cair Paravel at det lukter ateist-produksjon av dette.

You navigated the battlefield suffering one hit and biting one bullet, which represents an overall performance at the 62th percentile (i.e., 62% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 1180 people who have completed Battleground God.

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:

Question 11

If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

Question 15

As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe 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 occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

MIN RESPONS TIL DETTE:

Ateisme er "a matter of faith". Savnet dog agnostisisme som alternativ - som jeg mener man i prinsippet rasjonelt kan forsvare.

Loch Ness-monsteret er et kontingent, materiellt vesen som evt lever i innsjøen i Skottland et sted. Man kan fange Loch Ness-monsteret. Man kan se det, ta på det, kjenne lukten av det, ta bilde av det. Det er rett og slett mulig å finne ut om det finnes eller ikke.

Gud derimot er ikke et kontingent, materiellt vesen. Man kan ikke fange Gud. Man kan ikke se Gud med øynene, ta på Ham, kjenne lukten av Ham, eller ta bilde av Ham. Det er rett og slett ikke mulig å benytte naturvitenskapelige metoder for å avdekke om det finnes noe som er ikke-naturlig eller ikke.

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 8 and 16, which generated the following response:

Question 8

It is justified to base one's belief about the external world - i.e., the world outside one's head - on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction.

Question 16

The serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe, had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to kill prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in murdering his victims.

You are consistent in applying the principle that that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.

This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God's will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith. But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet.

MIN RESPONS TIL DETTE:

Noe vanskelig spørsmål, men skal man være konsistent (og hevde som jeg gjør) - at Gud er det maksimalt største vesen - fullstendig hellig og ren kjærlighet - så må man også si at det Gud befaler må være det høyeste gode, og fullstendig bindende. Spørsmålet om hvordan man kan være sikker på at det er Gud som befaler er derimot viktig. Abraham som det nevnes her vandret med Gud, hadde samtaler med Gud etc. Det burde ikke være noe problem for Abraham å være sikker på at Gud befalte som Han gjorde, selv om det også gav Abraham kvaler. Det Gud sa måtte Abraham utføre for å være tro mot Gud. Abraham kalles bl.a. derfor for troens far, og Gud stanset ham som kjent før han skulle til å ofre sin egen sønn - og velsignet ham for hans tro.

Gud må være ren og skjær godhet. Selve det som kan definere hva det gode er. Derfor kan man i sin egen samvittighet også kjenne på hva som er av Gud og ikke av Gud, men psykisk sykdom forekommer, og djevelen kan komme som en lysets engel. Bl.a. derfor bør man også være skeptisk og oppsøke hjelp dersom man hører stemmer i sitt eget hode f.eks. Et friskt hjerte og et friskt sinn vil derimot ikke ha så store problemer med å kjenne hva som er av Gud i sitt eget indre eller sin egen samvittighet.

Gud må være det viktigste i ens liv. Man må verdsette Gud selv over sin egen kone og barn - fordi Gud er den perfekte Far som vi kan komme til med våre problemer - og Han gir oss hvile. Akkurat som jeg ønsker at mine barn skal komme til meg med sine problemer - samme hva det er. Men jeg er ikke hellig og ren som Gud. Bortimot daglig tar jeg meg selv i svik mot det jeg selv anser som den moralske standarden for det gode.

«Du skal elske Herren din Gud av hele ditt hjerte og av hele din sjel og av all din forstand. Dette er det største og første budet. Men det andre er like stort: Du skal elske din neste som deg selv. På disse to budene hviler hele loven og profetene.»

- Jesus (Matt 37-40)

[fiskerdigg]

Morsom test, her er mine resultater.

 

You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 1 bullet, which represents an overall performance at the 93th percentile (i.e., 93% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 1218 people who have completed Battleground God.

 

 

Recap of your Bitten Bullet

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 7 and 14, which generated the following response:

You claimed earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now stated that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that She exists. The problem is that there is nocertain 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.

[Imlekk]

Det er artig hvordan noen religiøse her jobber beinhardt for å rasjonalisere at de har problemer med å ha et konsistent syn på gud og lignende. Mon tro om resultatene kan være fordi mange religioner fører med seg så mange dogmer man så må få til å henge på greip.

[Gjest Bruker-95147]

Jeg for min del sliter med definisjonen på "Gud" - så ikke at testen beskrev noe heller, så da brukte jeg min egen definisjon, og alle mine svar ble helt riktige