Philosophy Quizzy

[logomancer]

dracono posted a nice philosophy quiz called Battleground God. I scored 0 direct hits and bit one bullet, which was enough to get me this:

That's their second-highest award. If you make it through without a scratch (no hits, no bullets bit) then you get the TPM Medal of Honour. (They're British, you know.)

And here's what I bit the bullet on:

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 bite the bullet.

Comments

[pathia.livejournal.com]

Why do you think you'd need more evidence in favor of God than of Evolution?

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

Bloody irritating, that is. There is a preponderence of evidence, if I may borrow a legal phrase, in favor of evolution. There is a preponderance of evidence (earthquakes, plagues, famines, me) against any non-evil God. In addition, there are several logical holes in the concept of God as traditionally portrayed. It thereby follows that it is more likely that evolution is true than divine creation is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, after all.