'Battleground God': a philosophical quiz

[Adrian Martin]

It appears that certain humanists have posted a quiz called 'Battleground God' (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm) which attempts to point out 'contradictions' in our view of God. Since I don't think that God can really be given any justice, much less in an online quiz, I'm wondering what you think of this quiz. Are the questions fair? Are the conclusions correct?

[Robert Hegwood]

It is fundamentally flawed in just about all its assumptions. Its reasoning proceeds without any nuance or depth from very narrow, even entirely mistaken premises.

A good book to read whose content answers much of this so called Quiz is "Being as Communion" by Zizoulas.

[Padraeg]

Since I've just "taken a direct hit!," I welcome any comments re my defense vs this silly game.
Here is the detailed 'accusation:'

You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which 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 theologians, but 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.

MY REBUTTAL: I think we addressed in HighSchool. Common Sense is clear that denying God the 'freedom' to murder is absurd. We MAY not do whatever we CAN! Equally is it absurd to state that God is not free to make a sqare circle, for reasons I'll leave to the philosphers to articulate. Perhaps simple definition of meanings. Even in multiple universes, there will never be square circles, having something to do with simple definitions of things... ;)

[Padraeg]

can a Christian be a humanist? eom

[Andreas Moran]

A square circle? No problem - it's a circle with corners.

[Anthony]

(edited out - don't want to get involved in this)

[Andrew]

This is pretty stupid... it's written by people who believe in their own thoughts, daydreamers who have not lived beyond mere psychological life. I would like to see them say these things to someone who has stared despair and the demons in the face and come to know Christ in the Uncreated Light.

[Shawn Lazar]

Woo hoo! I only got one direct hit (which I think depended on an equivocation of the term 'external evidence', and bit no bullets!

Anyways, I don't think there's anything new or shocking here, just the same questions Christian and pagan philosophers have been debating for centuries.

Are there any modern day Orthodox philosophers of religion, by the way? Oh ya, what am I thinking... Richard Swinburne. But anyone else?

Cheers,
Shawn

[Rick H.]

No injuries so far, but watch out! Danger ahead!




This is what I have so far, how long does thing go on? I have coffee that needs to be made.

[Rick H.]

Nevermind, I continued with this and Andrew is right . . . this is stupid!!!

I won't waste anyone's time explaining why.

[Paul Cowan]

ok, you are right. That was stupid and a waste of precious minutes. Thankfully, the main game link is now broken and cannot hurt others.

[Owen Jones]

There is another way to approach this, of course, and that is to love the suffering atheist, and not to try to convince him that he is wrong propositionally. The conventional "I don't really care" atheist is another kettle of fish. But the devout atheist who is trying to prove something is a contradiction in terms. Why is he being so evangelical in his faith?

[Owen Jones]

Having filled out the questions, it is an obvious set up. First of all, it lacks a necessary empirical component and that is the problem of paradox. All scientific inquiry, rational inquiry, has to deal with the problem of paradox. This quiz completely ignores the problem of the intrinsic paradoxic nature of reality. Second, it posits God as an existing thing, some kind of object of rational inquiry, which He isn't. Do is Beyond all objects of rational inquiry. As St. John of Damascus begins his Exposition...God is unknowable in His essence.

Of course, by posing God as She, you also have an obvious finger in the eye. But the most important objection is the problem of suffering and evil. It basically conflates the two. And it assumes that so-called "religious" people are complete dummies who have never thought about the problem, whereas the Bible confronts both the problem of suffering and the problem of evil head on in very honest fashion, brutally honest fashion to be exact, something which the scientific skeptics do not.

They are really setting up a grade school Sunday school version of Christianity as a straw man.