17-Question test to see if your beliefs are logically defensible

Another interesting feature of this site is the Do-It-Yourself Deity:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm

Here are the results of my concept of god:

The Report

Plausibility Quotient

Plausibility Quotient = 0.9

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 0.9. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

What kind of God is that!?

The metaphysical engineers are happy to report that, to the best of their knowledge, the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. But they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. She is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?

We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faith
----------------------
I chose only two qualities of god/creator:
1)The Creator (of all that exists)
2)Eternally Existing (will go on and on and on...)
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
No, I disagree. The differant contextualized meanings is what makes this a test. A fact, is a fact regardless of context. For example, there's only one way to answer all the questions with out contradicting your self. That's at the very first question. Can one prove God exist?

If you answer either yes or no, you're on you way to taking a hit or a bullet.

The only logically defensible answer is "I don't know".
Click to expand...

No, mottard. I answered "No" to the first question and bit no bullets and wasn't shot.

I don't know is retarded. I don't know about fairies technically either. But I usually don't go at lengths about how we can know nothing about fairies and should regard them as perfectly plausible.
 
RAARRRRR I'm a Dinosaur! said:
the bullet i bit was I said god could make square circles.

also wm did this test about 5 times before posting what he did
Click to expand...

No, once. I deleted a bunch of posts, but like three of them had to do with the first test, and the others were a screwed up post of my image and the words "This is a faggot".

When I answered it originally I posted that it's OK to believe in evolution and that you shouldn't believe in god without clear evidence. Then it said "OH NOEZER? YOU SAID YOU BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION BUT THERE'S NOT CLEAR EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?!" Well woopdie fucking do, mr. semantics. I had thought that there was pretty fucking clear evidence for evolution. And if there were as much evidence for god, there would be reason to believe in him. Problem is, there's no fucking evidence for god.

So I took it again, and answered that it was OK to believe in god without "clear" evidence.
 
Last edited:
RAARRRRR I'm a Dinosaur! said:
specifically agnostics wm or agnog/atheists?

what about our love for dawkins?
Click to expand...

Smug mottish agnostics, who think their cowardly position shields them from the wrath of the religious.

There's no reason to take the possibility of God seriously in the modern world. As science progresses, it pushes out the gaps that God was invented to explain, and it becomes increasingly obvious that the supernatural was merely a product of the human imagination, and that everything is natural.

The only thing science can't disprove is a god who might as well not exist. At this point, believing in god is as useful as solipsism.
 
Last edited:
CaptBillyTheKid said:
The liking of guns is politically universal. And it's much more than shotgun shells.
Click to expand...
Yea and not only that they're shotgun shells and casings in the form of a peace sign. Grind don't you know a Jungian metaphor when you see one? Now what kind of self respecting conservative would do that? You owe Cap'n Billy an apology!!!
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
No, I disagree. The differant contextualized meanings is what makes this a test. A fact, is a fact regardless of context. For example, there's only one way to answer all the questions with out contradicting your self. That's at the very first question. Can one prove God exist?

If you answer either yes or no, you're on you way to taking a hit or a bullet.

The only logically defensible answer is "I don't know".
Click to expand...

The use of the word 'God' with a cap 'G' showed bias. The use of the third person feminine pronoun brought focus onto existence and possible gender issues. Note that adjacent to the quiz was a box asking if you hate women or something.
Some of the choices could not be sensibly made in accordance with ones own stated philosophy.
It was an interesting set of quessies but probably the work of a first year student with an agenda of his or her own.
 
ironhead said:
Another interesting feature of this site is the Do-It-Yourself Deity:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm

Here are the results of my concept of god:

The Report

Plausibility Quotient

Plausibility Quotient = 0.9

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 0.9. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

What kind of God is that!?

The metaphysical engineers are happy to report that, to the best of their knowledge, the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. But they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. She is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?

We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faith
----------------------
I chose only two qualities of god/creator:
1)The Creator (of all that exists)
2)Eternally Existing (will go on and on and on...)
Click to expand...


4142234824_199a1fc009_o.png


YAY! Pretty easy when you select nothing.
 
The Report

Plausibility Quotient

Plausibility Quotient = 0.8

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 0.8. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

*******************

Can God do the illogical?

The metaphysical engineers request clarification of what you mean when you say God is able to do anything.

In the model, God was asked to make 2 + 2 = 5 (where all the terms hold their common meanings). She could not do so and the model broke down. It seems that no being can ever do what is logically impossible. It is not just beyond the wit of humanity to make 2 + 2 = 5, such a thing is a contradiction in terms.

So the metaphysical engineers seek your permission to understand by all-powerful that God can do anything which is logically possible. Before accepting this, however, you should understand that by accepting the limits of logical possibility on God, you are leaving open the possibility that, if some characteristics you attribute to God turn out to entail logical contradictions, you must give these up. It means, in effect, accepting that rationality is a constraint on God (though it is a moot point exactly what the word constraint means in this regard).

*******************

For eternity?

The metaphysical engineers request clarification of what you mean when you say God exists eternally.

You may mean that God exists through all space and time. But according to our best physics, space and time exist only within the confines of a universe. This would seem to constrain God's existence to within a universe.

You could mean that God exists "outside" space and time. But the metaphysical engineers find it hard to understand what you mean by "eternally", if that's the case. Doesn't the concept "eternally" require some notion of time to make sense? The metaphysical engineers are still puzzling over these issues.
Click to expand...

The concepts of logic and time are human in nature and thus fallible. Of course so is the concept of faith, so I could easily be wrong.
 
I mean, this is actually completely and totally ridiculous. God is human in nature, since he's a product of the human imagination. He's mind-produced. Logic and time are not mind-produced, they exist in nature. Logic and time are therefore above god.
 
Watermark said:
I mean, this is actually completely and totally ridiculous. God is human in nature, since he's a product of the human imagination. He's mind-produced. Logic and time are not mind-produced, they exist in nature. Logic and time are therefore above god.
Click to expand...

The concept of logic and our understanding of time are human. We understand time is the passage of everything we know. We measure it in ways we understand. While it's actually passage is natural, all things we use to understand it, chronicle it,and explain it, are human. And logic is no more than an accepted rational to explain how one thing leads to another.

God, in our extremely limited understanding, is indeed a human idea. But that doesn't discount the possibility that it could be right.
 
Watermark said:
I mean, this is actually completely and totally ridiculous. God is human in nature, since he's a product of the human imagination. He's mind-produced. Logic and time are not mind-produced, they exist in nature. Logic and time are therefore above god.
Click to expand...

But imagination can 'create' anything. Ancient man worshipped trees and rocks The Egyptians invented some very wild and wonderful creatures.
But again you call this product of the ancient imagination God. Not Allah? Not Brian? so by giving this ill considered concept a name you are giving it a relevance. Belief in a power that cannot be explained by rational thought must be suspect at the least. Hence the questionaire was faulted from the beginning.

How about:
Q1: Do you consider that the species 'man' has or can have a full knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the universe or multiverse?
Q2: Do you think it vital for man's existence that he knows or to is able to explain all matters of the universe or multiverse?
Q3: If there are matters you cannot rationally explain do you consider it useful or important to classify them as the work of a deity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top