Interesting

[EileenMRegan]

If you are interested in how logical your god thoughts are take the Battlefield God test, go to the secong "home" on the bottom of the side index, and then the Battlefield link...........


http://www.apath.org/creating_religion.html - Similar

Battlefield God - A fabulous online test to see how rational / logical your belief system is. Very impressive. And only 1 multiple-choice and 16 true/false questions!

How To Create Your Own Religion In 10 Easy Steps
What good is creating your own religion if you can't get people to worship your Gods and beg you for guidance because they don't trust themselves to ...

[HairyBuddah]

Here is a direct link to the Battlefield God page:

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

They recommend you take the Do-It-Yourself Diety test first.

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

My Do-It-Yourself score:

The Report

Plausibility Quotient

Plausibility Quotient = 1.0

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 1.0. 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 faiths.

On to the Battlefield. I took my first hit on Question 13.

You may have just taken a direct hit!

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed 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 a choice:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

I disagree with their premise. I believe that irrevocable proof exists that evolutionary theory is true.

They only gave me two choices to move forward.

I do require a higher standard of proof for belief in God than belief in evolution. I'll bite the bullet!

I'll take a direct hit. I did contradict myself!

While I disagree with both statements, I consider taking the hit the lesser incorrect answer so will go with that.

At Question 16 I am told I have bitten a second 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.

Again I disagree with their reasoning. Their conclusion is only correct when it comes to inner feelings about the existence of God. It is possible to have a rational discussion concerning tangible evidence of the Supreme Being's existence or lack thereof.

And the end.

You have reached the end!

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

You took 1 direct hit and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullet. 482516 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.

And the final report

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Comparative Statistics

* 482516 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
* 45.81% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
* 7.88% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

Analysis of your Direct Hit

List of questions

Direct Hit 1

You answered True to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed 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 a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to take the direct hit.
Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

List of questions

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered True to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

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.

Hairy

[EileenMRegan]

We took the same hit but I didn't bit the bullet....unfortuntely I didn't save my paper work. I guess I decided that evolution has a higher standard.

I wonder how many on this forum are going to have the same results............maybe explaining a bit about who winds up a Spiritual Humanist!