Really Hard Divine Quiz

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 01 May 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Liliana	01 May 2002
This test is to test whether you beliefs in the divine are logical, and its really hard to get through without being hit. I managed not to get hit, but only 8% of people do. http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm Good Luck :THP

Spasticgirlie	01 May 2002
Eeek I got hit twice and bit one bullet. So that means I contradicted myself 2 and once I held a view that many people would find strange. Hmmm it was interesting and time consuming. Hehe

.dc	01 May 2002
i got a medal of distinction... getting hit only once. =) i guess this means i'm okay with the god/dess/holy carpet? blessed beltane, .dc

Liliana	01 May 2002
Hehehe guess so :) It also means Im ok with my Christian Wiccan blend belief hehe :THP

napaisti	01 May 2002
No direct hits. But I did bite the bullet 3 times! No wonder I so seldom get into religious discussions with people. Liliana: I think you're right, maybe there is something to this Christian Wicca approach. be well, napaisti

floracove	01 May 2002
2 bullets 2hits

Mairead	01 May 2002
I did the quiz! I got two hits and apparently I bit a bullet. I still managed to get an award...hmmm... To sum up: basically my beliefs are rooted in logic, even though some people may think I'm off... I like to to think I'm little off! Otherwise, it seems to me that like would be so ho-hum.

Kiama	01 May 2002
I don't do Philosophy for nothing! I didn't get direct hits at all, but I bit 3 bullets, and got a TPM Service Medal, which only something like 37% of people get. Thing is though, some of the things it said which were Biting Bullets, to me, weren't. It said that I bit a bullet on the Peter Sutcliffe question, because I said that he was justified in believing what he was told to do came from God. SO??!!! Of course he's justified to believe that... But it doesn't mean his rape was right. It doesn't mean everyone else is jutified in believing it came from God, and so he isn't lte off the crime at all... And to say that accepting that religious debate cannot be rational or logical is biting the bullet is absurd. People have known this for centuries: Haven't these people ever read St Anselm's arguments for the existence of God??!!! I don't think there are implications enough in this issue to constitute a bullet being bitten, cuz Philosophers have known this for ages.... Anyway, there's my Tuppence. Kiama

Kaz	01 May 2002
1 bullet and 1 hit, not bad... kaz

phirefly	01 May 2002
wow. no hits or bullets here! my husband (with his masters in philosophy and love of logic) would be so proud :} i must admit though, my rational mind often contradicts with my irrational, and i choose to believe in a lot of things that might have had lightning bolts flung at me all over the place. thank goodness they didn't ask the tough questions :} god's just one issue i've actually got figured out.

carolliketarot	02 May 2002
The test is really fun and I got 2 bullets. I got the TPM medal of distinction. :D Not bad for a person who got poor grade in philosophy in university. Carol

kayne	02 May 2002
Wow - that was hard! I just couldn't bring myself to say the rapest was right to do what he did... I suffered two direct hits... That one at the end got me too. Hmm... It sure was hard, very well constructed.

fairyhedgehog	02 May 2002
One hit, no bullets. I was tempted to go back and change my answer for the hit, as I really wasn't sure about which one to choose. But I didn't :) So, I'm a logical atheist :) (Mostly)

Pollux	02 May 2002
1 Hit + 1 Bullet Kiama just got the sleeping philosopher out of me. I just have to comment this ones... I think it is just unfair... **************** My only hit: You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not 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 now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction! Why is it? I don't want to be stupidly polemic... to be ME, in brief. But I have a notion that there is difference between External World and God - both in bold. I think that, if someone bothers to keep this discussion going, I will try to explain my view better. In brief, again, I mean that, even though one has to come to terms with the OUTER reality to establish beliefs on it, the same DOES NOT apply to the idea of GOD. Should a battleground and victims on it put me off my inner perception of a God, occuring no matter what? Probably I am not clear... if someone cares, I will try to be plainer. **************** My only bullet: 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. That is a misapprehension. I DO think it cannot be CONSTRAINED by basic principles of rationality, but I am not saying that this applies to the extent of prohibiting any rational discussion on God. I am not maintaining that rational thought is impossible, but only that it goes hand in hand with the "irrational perception" of it, if you like this expression. This feels to much like Post-Aristotelic Scolastic Fashion... I detedt it. ==================== I hope my points were clear. Kiama, I am expecting some input from you!!!! As regards your post instead, I can say I definitely agree with you, and see your point. Even though I didn't reply that way! :P

Kiama	02 May 2002
First to reply to Kayne: The thing about Sutcliffe... The question wasn't asking you if you thought he was right to []rape[/i], it was asking you if he was right to believe what he [i]thought[/i]. That is why I think the bullet they said I bit with this one wasn't anything like that at all! Just cuz Sutcliffe believed that what he did came from God, doesn't mean we all have to go along with him and agree with him, and thus, we do not justify his rape. Pollux: I agree with your bitten bullet. That is what I was trying to say, but you said it better. I mean, how can the Infinite (God) be fully understood and comprehended by the finite (Humans)? I think the problem with the logic used in this website is that it does not take into account much of what philosophers argue about now. It also assumes far too many things. And anyway, logic isn't everything. If it was, then I could argue that Everything Is A Goat. In fact, I'll show you how right now... 1: The statement 'everything is a goat' is either TRUE or FALSE. 2: If it is FALSE then NOTHING is a goat. But we can quite plainly see that this is FALSE in istelf, cuz we see goats around. 3: Thus, if the statement is FALSE, it must be TRUE. 4: Thus, everything is a Goat. Y'see, logic takes away all personal preference, all anomolies, all internal feelings and subjective ideas... Thus, it hardly gives us a clear view of the real world. Kiama

Malachite	02 May 2002
yay! I made it ! wow...feeling 8percentish here!... yay! Oh...Kiama... Step 2: was off....the null hypothesis for 'everything is a goat' is 'not everything is a goat'....which allows for the existence of some goats which are goats. logic is proscribed by human terminology... But I think you're right...Logic doesn't make everything...

Rhiannon	02 May 2002
1 hit, the same one Pollux got. "48.93% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction. " Interesting. Rhiannon :)

napaisti	02 May 2002
Kiama: sounds like we bit the same bullets, and found them equally questionable. Glad to see I'm not the only one who had problems with the way the authors of the quiz interpreted the responses. }) napaisti

joya250	02 May 2002
okay - 2 bullets and 2 hits! yet still, got the TMP Medal of Distinction.... however, I'm with you guys (Kiama and Pollux) on this... first of all, "God" SHOULD have the power to make 1+1=72, and make cicles square! sheesh! It's "God"(dess) we're talking about here. also, that guy DID have a right to inner beliefs -- now whether or not we agree on his morality is another thing.... oh, and belief in "God" is not the same as belief in the stupid Lock Ness Monster..... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaa! :) fun quiz though. thanks for posting it. I was pretty healthy until the end. ... then I was sporting crutches and an arm in a sling. talk about being persecuted for your beliefs!

Pollux	02 May 2002
Joya, I don't know why... I like you more and more... :P (what a ruffian, you could buy me with a penny)

aeonx	02 May 2002
2 hits and 1 bullet. Annoying! I always want to do the best!! :( I'll live though... :P *l*

Kiama	02 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Malachite yay! I made it ! wow...feeling 8percentish here!... yay! Oh...Kiama... Step 2: was off....the null hypothesis for 'everything is a goat' is 'not everything is a goat'....which allows for the existence of some goats which are goats. logic is proscribed by human terminology... But I think you're right...Logic doesn't make everything... Thankyou! You've just demonstrated how useless logic can be when trying to say things about the real world. What I used in my example was the same logic used by philosophers all over the world to justify their claims. The most common and known one was Ansem's argument for the existence of God. He said that God is 'That than which nothing greater can be conceived', and thus, he must exist, cuz if he didn't, he would not be he greatest thing we can conceive (Existing is greater than not existing). However, this is using exactly the same logic as my Goat thing, and also, Bertrand Russels' parody if it: Men Exist. Santa Claus is a man. Therefore, Santa Claus must exist. Lots of people try to appy logic to the real world, and work out moral and philosophical problems using it, but as we have seen time and time again, not just from the arguments I have pitifully tried to present, but by nearly all logical philosophical treatises (Aquinas' 5 Ways is one, which failed DISMALLY!)... Kiama

Malachite	02 May 2002
I think maybe its the fault of the human mind, rather than logic...logically, anywho...;)

fairyhedgehog	02 May 2002
(edited to remove stuff which had already been written about goats) Have you had a look around the rest of that website? There are loads more fun games there, including one with playing cards where you have to work out what the sequence is (I failed).

Melvis	02 May 2002
Hey, all! 2 Hits, 1 Bullet. Same bullet about the Rapist. And then I just couldn't wrap my 36-year old brain around the question about the atheist, so I took a hit on that one. Spent 5 minutes just trying to break down that sentence in my head...to no avail, obviously! ;) Peace, Melvis :TSTRE

Kiama	03 May 2002
Melvis: Don't worry about that Athiest question... I had to draw diagrams on a piece of paper to get my head around that one! LOL Kiama

Morgeinne	04 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Pollux 1 Hit + 1 Bullet Kiama just got the sleeping philosopher out of me. I just have to comment this ones... I think it is just unfair... **************** My only hit: You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not 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 now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction! Why is it? I don't want to be stupidly polemic... to be ME, in brief. But I have a notion that there is difference between External World and God - both in bold. I think that, if someone bothers to keep this discussion going, I will try to explain my view better. In brief, again, I mean that, even though one has to come to terms with the OUTER reality to establish beliefs on it, the same DOES NOT apply to the idea of GOD. Should a battleground and victims on it put me off my inner perception of a God, occuring no matter what? Probably I am not clear... if someone cares, I will try to be plainer. That is the same thing I got a hit on, and the only question I got hit on (so I got the medal of distinction.) I bit no bullets, got 1 hit. I agree with you that the game is wrong...I think that you can believe in God on ANY grounds, and what I took was that one of the questions meant you could not believe in mundane things as an inner conviction. There is a difference between the mundane and God. If we didn't take our belief in a higher power on faith, we'd all be atheists. But then at the same time it is wrong to be racist or homophobic or something like that on JUST inner conviction. Have reason. *hugs* Morgeinne

Ramses	05 May 2002
well, I didnīt do so well...but Iīve made it ...Iīm happy ....hehe I got zero direct hits, and ate 2 bullets ... they said I got the second place, for the medal of distinction... maybe, when I become more rational(if that happens, lol) I may get a medal of honour.....Congratulations for the people who did it ....youīre the best ....hehe

Ramses	05 May 2002
I think that you got hit because you contradicted yourselves, rationally.....in the first page of the site, it tells that they are not judging faith, only rationality.... rationally, the outer world and god are the same....the things that happen in the outer world and the existance of God are just a matter of opinion...I mean, the way you see things in the outer world depend on your analysis of the facts, and the existance of God also depends on you, whether you believe it or not... thatīs why you got hit, I guess... remember that the game does not judge your beliefs, opinions and perceptions....it judges rationality in general... so, Iīm sorry to say that but, the game is right .... if necessary, I could try to explain myself better, in case I did not make myself clear....

Pollux	05 May 2002
Even rationally, I don't think there is a FLAGRANT CONTRADICTION - as the game states. Probably I just lack rationality... Ramses, don't take it amiss... I think there is a Contradiction if we want to think of rationality as Kiama has done some posts above tihs one... Well, I will try to elaborate better, gimme some time! :) AND, if the test is evaluating my rationality... I wonder why it must be on the existence of GOD!!! I DO think it is quite a tricky subject matter, there surely are better ones if we must restrict to Reason. HOLD ON!!! I'm right back with my elaboration! :P

Ramses	05 May 2002
well, this is surely going to be something difficult to talk about... I think weīd better forget it....donīt know why....maybe Iīve been feeling down lately...Iīve been feeling no interest in arguing about tough matters.... I think Iīve been working too much...really tired ... sorry, Pollux....sorry folks... well, Iīll try to recover from my present state of stress...

Kiama	05 May 2002
I have found the fatal flaw behind this quiz... They claimed that God cannot be argued or discussed about rationally or logically, yet the whole point of the test was to try and see if your beliefs about God are logical and rational... If we already know (Cuz they told us, and they must be right ;) ) that this is impossible to do, then why ask us about it? And if it is impossible, why did a few of us get through without any hits or bites? Kiama :)

Ramses	05 May 2002
Well, folks... maybe we are putting our personal beliefs ahead of our logic...when analysing the test, we have to analyse that through logics and semantics.... Iīm not saying that God does not exist (eventhough I, personally, do not believe in God), not even the test is... When it said, for example, that even if thereīs no concrete evidence that Loch Ness exists, this is no reason for us to believe that it does not exist....well, that applies just the same to God....letīs not forget that GOD and an egg, letīs say, are the exact SAME thing for some people...itīs all a matter of faith, personal opinion, and a hell lot more.... Most of the arguments of the people I saw speaking against the site, were defending their personal opinions about GOD...well, the IMPORTANT thing when trying to analyse that test is : 1) It asks us first, if we believe in GOD, if we do not believe in GOD or if we donīt know.... well...the answers you give after that may vary, according to your first answer....so, before complaining about a specific question, weīd have to analyse the whole test, in ALL of its possibilities!!! 2) Some answers do not RATIONALLY contradict each other, so they are the ones that form the basis of judgment of oneīs logical thought in the game...and depending on what you answer, all the rest of the possibilities change, according to each answer.... well, the oneīs here who brought some possible evidence of failure of the test only showed us a sample of a single question...so, we cannot judge the whole process, therefore we canīt say that the test is wrong...the program of the test recognizes the different possibilities...it's not a single process...the program changes according to your answers, all the time...for each and every answer you give... OK PEOPLE...I donīt mean to say that the test is right or wrong, or anything...eventhough I loved it ...but, thatīs not what I want...I tend to defend things that are accused under unfair grounds... AND ALSO, I had an insight, through this argument of ours, about our spiritual world.... arenīt we acting like children, accusing something or someone, just because this someone or something didnīt say something good about us ??????...Like, if it had said we were brilliant, we would have said nothing against it...but, as it said we were limited, now we start a war.... you know...I donīt think I have seen here, someone saying " well, I guess the test is wrong, but Iīm not sure"... Hey people....if we start acting this way because of a simple test, what do you think we may be doing in real life???....maybe weīre doing the same.... Maybe some of us are hidding from the true spiritual values, whichever they might be, just because something else does not jugde us, does not say we are not perfect... Folks, letīs not forget the correct path...do not judge before having considered ALL aspects of something....or better, NEVER judge...HELP, GUIDE, COUNSEL, ETC. AND also...letīs accept the mistakes weīve made, and try to avoid them in the future... Well, Iīm sorry for all this people...really sorry if I sounded agressive or something like that...That was not my intention... I'm just positive that, up to now, everything that was said wasnīt correct....if anybody really proves me that the test is wrong, I'll accept it...I have no problems with that....I don't want to be against everyone on the forums....lol...but, up to the moment, I say the test is right ....sorry.... I hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings....let's not argue over such a simple thing...not even complex things are worth arguing... I hope that, if I hurt anyone, I may be forgiven.... And, finally, once more ...I'm sorry....I know I haven't been the same latelly....I've been a bit stressd, tired, etc... If anyone sees something in the tarot about me...or any other spiritual thing which might help me be a better person, I'd be glad.... Sorry again...and I LOVE ALL OF YOU !!!!!!! HONESTLY!!!

debins	05 May 2002
I had ridiculous difficulty with the quiz over the word "God". So I substituted the word "God" with "Universe" or "Universal Source" and found more clarity in my own thoughts. With the latter I took one hit. With the former I couldn't keep track on my own thoughts at all. Thanks for the link to the site. I've mentioned it to three friends who all consider themselves as having excellent reasoning abilities. Mine need exercising. Namaste Debins.

Kiama	06 May 2002
Ramses, I am sorry to say your words did quite hurt my feelings... But its okay, cuz you didn't mean to! ((((((((((RAMSES)))))))) However, you say we are trying to prove the test is a failure, and we are defending our beliefs, but we are not. Those of us who are discussing this test philosophically, are playing the devils' advocate, and discussing it simply because we can. At least, that's what I'm doing. I'm a Philosopher at heart, and still a growing one, so I need all the argument I can get... (I'm not off to do a degree in Philosophy for nothing, y'know! ;) ) so it is natural for me to criticise something. It is natural for me to argue against it, or for it. Its also pretty fun! ;) I have been taught a simple process: If you make a claim, you have to justify it fully. IMO, this test fell short of that simple procedure. It contradicted itself, whilst at the same time, having a go at us for conradicting ourselves! (BTW: I didn't contradict myself. I got through by biting only 2 bullets, which weren't that bad really, so IMO I got through with flying colours.) Quote: arenīt we acting like children, accusing something or someone, just because this someone or something didnīt say something good about us ??????...Like, if it had said we were brilliant, we would have said nothing against it...but, as it said we were limited, now we start a war.... you know...I donīt think I have seen here, someone saying " well, I guess the test is wrong, but Iīm not sure"... Hey people....if we start acting this way because of a simple test, what do you think we may be doing in real life???....maybe weīre doing the same.... Maybe some of us are hidding from the true spiritual values, whichever they might be, just because something else does not jugde us, does not say we are not perfect... Folks, letīs not forget the correct path...do not judge before having considered ALL aspects of something....or better, NEVER judge...HELP, GUIDE, COUNSEL, ETC. AND also...letīs accept the mistakes weīve made, and try to avoid them in the future... 1) I would argue against this test, no matter what it said I was, or did... Malachite, who did so well and was old he was brilliant cuz he got past without anything, argued against the test. 2) What are the true spiritual values? 3) Judgement is an inherent part of life and the Universe. By judging things, we know whether or not they are dangerous, or whether they are nice and tasty. If we could not judge, we could not know which was the tastier, and which nastier: A Bengal Tiger or chocolate bithday cake. By criticising a test, we are not on the correct path? Hmmm.... Not sure I agree with that one. Why should we not judge such a test? Psychology has proven over and over an over again that such tests give no indication of the real world, and that their results are usualy not correct. For all we know, people could lie whilst answering that test. They may believe in God, but just for the test, say they don't... 4) Mistakes we made? I made no mistakes. It is only in the eyes of somebody else that I made a mistake, which, in my eyes, turned out to be perfectly fine and dandy! Mistakes are in the eye of the beholder. You made a claim. Justify it plase. ;) Also, don't take this personally. Like I said before, it is in my nature to argue and disagree, it is not that I am aiming it at you, but at what you said. Which are two different things. Please do not be offended by this, but, as you so rightly said, when we are injured, we act like children, and try to defend ourselves from the person that accused us of being less than perfect! ;) Its a survival mechanism. Kiama

Ramses	12 May 2002
sorry folks .... I think I need vacations.....Iīve been pretty tired and stressed lately....havenīt been getting enough sleep...too much work... letīs forget about this subject.... at least, for the moment, Iīve had enough.... maybe some other time.... Iīm sorry for my tough words....honestly.... sorry Kiama....

Kiama	13 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Ramses sorry folks .... I think I need vacations.....Iīve been pretty tired and stressed lately....havenīt been getting enough sleep...too much work... letīs forget about this subject.... at least, for the moment, Iīve had enough.... maybe some other time.... Iīm sorry for my tough words....honestly.... sorry Kiama.... No need to apologise, Ramses! Its okay to say what you think! As I have said before in a thread in the Chat forum, my vice is arguing! I will argue anything as long as it is a good argument. You are perfectly entitled to say what you think, but it is perfectly normal for what you say to be challenged. Everyone that says anything should expect that! Again, no need to apologise. Kiama

Malachite	13 May 2002
If you think she's bad here, trying meeting her in person... ;) Sorry Kiama, but I had to say it!

Kiama	13 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Malachite If you think she's bad here, trying meeting her in person... ;) Sorry Kiama, but I had to say it! Yep, that's me! Numerous phone conversations between us have made Malachite realise that I am basically the most annoying person to try and have a philosophical debate with, cuz I always answer back! }) He he. I love it. Kiama

amyel	13 May 2002
I surprised myself. I was afraid to take this challenge. ut tonight, I did (it must have been the wine). And...I received a TPM Medal of Distinction! 1 direct hit and 0 bullets bitten! This is what tripped me up: "You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any 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!" I don't agree. The earlier question was about one's beliefs, not one's moral compass. I don't believe in a God - but that that doesn't mean I believe in an anarchial society, where people can do whatever they want because they believe it to be true. But, this was a philosophy test, not a test on the moral compass of society. Alas.

lunar_rabbit	15 May 2002
I bit one bullet. The athiest question threw me off, too! I read it like 5 times and finally just gave up and selected one of the answers to get it over with. Funny thing is, I went back and chose the OTHER answer and also got a hit. LOL. Oh well. Good topics to think about. I do feel there is a fatal flaw somewhere when people believe in a god that has control over *everything* -- from thunderstorms to what underwear you put on in the morning. Just my opinion.

Rain	17 May 2002
I BIT ONE BULLET AND ONE HIT...THAKS FOR POSTING THAT THOUGH, I ENJOYED PLAYING

Liliana	17 May 2002
Its a bit easier when you think God cant do everything. like he cant makea square circle and such. I believe in a set of laws even he must abide in, whether he created them or they came from somewhere else i dont know :)

napaea	06 Sep 2002
1 bullet 1 hit; TPM medal of distinction

Starfish	06 Sep 2002
1 bullet 1 hit; TPM medal of distinction for me too. :TQP Starfish

Strega	06 Sep 2002
I emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour. :D 0 direct hits and bit 0 bullets... :cool: I'm not sure if I should be proud or disturbed. *LOL*

Starfish	06 Sep 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Strega I'm not sure if I should be proud or disturbed. *LOL* LOL :D :TQP Starfish

Laurel	06 Sep 2002
1 bullets, 2 hits... I think I need to practice my rationalism a bit. :) Laurel

Lady Anna	06 Sep 2002
I got a medal of distinction... getting hit only once and biting only one bullets. :D I guess this means I'm okay with the god/goddess? Blessed Be, Love, Analisa :TQC

Violet Gargoyle	06 Sep 2002
Quote: Originally posted by napaea 1 bullet 1 hit; TPM medal of distinction And a Medal of Disctinction for Moi as well, bit one bullet- story of my life!

starr	07 Sep 2002
3 hits, one bullet got the Service medal. ONe cannot be rational all the time. Starr

Kismet	07 Sep 2002
I had one direct hit and bit the bullet once. This test was very interesting and thought provoking. Thanks!

WhiteDrag0n	09 Sep 2002
wow I got through with out getting hit or biteing a bullet, fancy that.

The Really Hard Divine Quiz thread was originally posted on 01 May 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.