Battleground God

[nq:1]Here's a quiz designed to test the rational consistency of one's beliefs (or not) about ***. Quite stimulating. http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/***.htm[/nq]
From the summation of the quiz results for me:

begin quote

How did you do compared to other peop

[nq:1]Here's a quiz designed to test the rational consistency of one's beliefs (or not) about ***. Quite stimulating. http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/***.htm[/nq]
There're lots of other intriguing "games" on that website... hence the fact that I'm still up at this ungodly h

[nq:1]Here's a quiz designed to test the rational consistency of one's beliefs (or not) about ***. Quite stimulating. http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/***.htm[/nq]
I was proved illogical. However, I would have more faith in the results if the people in charge knew how to spe

Le Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:44:05 +0100, Wood Avens a écrit :
[nq:1]Here's a quiz designed to test the rational consistency of one's beliefs (or not) about ***. Quite stimulating. http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/***.htm[/nq]
I took 4 hits and no bites, which I suppose is a n

[nq:1](...) By the way, the test failed to see one place where I was deliberately inconsistent. I have long held that a *** can be either omnipotent, or omniscient, but not both simultaneously; that would lead to an inconsistency. (...)[/nq]
How's that then?

Matti

[nq:1]I can't see that at all...surely if you're omnipotent, you can choose to know whatever you'd like to know...Aquinas or some such has probably anticipated this argument..r[/nq]
But if you are omnipotent, omniscience is superfluous since whatever you might want to know can be changed.

Jan Sand

In article , Marion says...
[nq:1]Direct hit 2: we have the same problem here. Does "a firm, inner conviction, without regard to the external evidence" have the same meaning as "a firm conviction based on one's present state of knowledge"? I say it doesn't. They say it does.[/nq]
Your wording may have differed from mine on the basis of earlier responses, but I'm pretty sure I interpreted

[nq:1]On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:14:57 +0100, mickwick (Email Removed)[/nq]
[nq:2]Perhaps I should start wearing sunglasses indoors.[/nq]
[nq:1]I discourage it. I don't think you can pull off the effect. The total effect requires wearing a jacket of some sort with the collar turned up. You don't wear jackets, do you?[/nq]
Of course. Indeed I sometimes wear an off-white suit. (65/35 polyest

[nq:1]Here's a quiz designed to test the rational consistency of one's beliefs (or not) about ***. Quite stimulating. http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/***.htm[/nq]
Thanks for the fun game! I had quibbles with my hits:

1. Earlier you said that it is justifiable to ba

[nq:1]The other one I thought would bullet me was: Torturing innocent people is morally wrong. I agreed, but I can imagine a case where the CIA would torture bin Laden's Mom to find out where he is, and prevent another 9-11. Is that morally wrong?[/nq]
Changing US foreign policy is a better bet, as far as preventing another 9/11 is concerned. The idea that you should treat people like **** in