Define Cynical Fan Forums

Real fun.<br><br><a href='http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/games.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/games.htm</a>

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Your God is the sustainer of all that is. This means that if God ceased to exist so would everything else.<br><br>The metaphysical engineers are finding it hard to model this God in our universe. The laws of physics do not seem to require that the universe has anything outside of itself to continue to exist. Therefore, they can't quite see what kind of evidence it would be possible to point to in order to come to the belief that God is required for the universe to continue.<br><br>When they have previously confronted this problem, it has been suggested that a law-giver or law-enforcer is required in order to sustain the laws of physics. But this response seems to rest on a misunderstanding of the nature of physical laws. Laws in the legal sense do require law-givers and law-enforcers. But physical laws are simply descriptions of the nature of reality. So the idea that a law-giver is needed to sustain the rules of physics seems to confuse the legal and scientific senses of laws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>1) Cosmology belies (with a controversy but one that's petering out thatnks to recent obsevations) that the Universe sits ona potential field that drove inflation int he early univrse and <b>may</b> be causeing the acceleratin we se today. If ti does this is certantly sdomehtign otuside the universe that has efects on it.<br><br>2) I believe that god exists within the physical laws. Pluss physics (who figure otu the physical laws) don't claim to ever know they have foudn the samallest thing or most fundamential force. They may say tht soemthign ois fundamental but implisit in that is "to the best of our knowledge). Physics can never rull out somethign mroe fundamental existing.<br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The metaphysical engineers request clarification of what you mean when you say God exists eternally.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>1) Why can't God exist both trhought all tiem and space and otuside of it?<br><br>2) Why dose beiogn constraid to a universe violate enternally if the univeres exists enternaly?<br><br>3) Why cant eterntiy transend the notions of time and space? They're prety much the same thign anyways and eternity can jsut mean existing throught. <br><br><br>The metaphysical engineers are stupid.

Battleground God is pretty good, I got one hit and two bullets.<br>The only reason I got that hit was cuz I didn't understand the thing that it got contradicted with. <!--emo&<_<--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br>And question 15 in the Morality game is such a toughie.

3 hits 2 bullets for me on Battlefield God though one hit was for a question I didn't exactly understand until I read the explaination... at which point I slaped myself in the head and said DUH! <br><br>--------------------<br><br>As for "Morality Play."<br><br><i>Your Moral Parsimony Score is 100%</i><br><br>I have no morals! (or rather I don't believe in absolute morals.)<br><br>--------------------<br><br>Taboo<br><br><i>Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.<br><br>Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.<br><br>Your Universalising Factor is: -1.</i><br><br><br>However, you couldn't pay <b>me</b> to do most of those things! <br><br>--------------------

ooooohhhhhh...<br><br>TPM GOT <b><i>TOLD</i></b> BY N^2!!!!!

I got one hit in Battlefield God and that's all, i was sure of my beliefs before anyway. God bless my atheism. I haven't checked the rest of the site yet.

Strangely enough, considering that I'm quite religious, I actually only had to bite one bullet, and that's really because of how the question was phrased. On a side note, one funny thing is that they think the only god that can exist completely with physics does not deserve the name of god.

So far, I only played the logic quiz... aced it by the way. yaay.

yeah, it's so easy. i got all 4 right. i can't believe only 19% answered number three right!

Just took the logic test, got them all correct (I imagine those people that got questions wrong didn't read the questions properly, I almost got one wrong because of that)<br><br>I took battlefield god again and actually though a bit about the questions.<br>This time around I only got 2 bullets, no hits.

Battlefield God was kinda fun... Personally, I'm insulted that I didn't die in the first 5 seconds <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The metaphysical engineers request clarification of what you mean when you say God is able to do anything.<br><br>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.<br><br>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).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>If you're willing to state that a being can do the logically impossible, then it's a fallacy to state that such a being is logically impossible because of it.<br><br>On the other hand, stating that an all-powerful being can't do the impossible is like saying that the impossible can't be done. Turning around and "accepting the limits of logical possibility on God" is like saying "an all powerful being can't do what can't be done." This isn't a contradiction, dsepite what some may think.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The metaphysical engineers request clarification of what you mean when you say God exists eternally.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Two questions:<br><br>1) Is it a problem for God to exist within the universe(s)?<br><br>2) If "reality" and "universe" are taken to mean the same thing, wouldn't stating "exists outside of the universe" be a contradiction?<br><br><br>Not that I care much. But it is interesting to see a TPM website. I like the magazine, but I never got around to looking for one. Neat.

It states they can't account for all the many possibilities and variants in the site.

yes, and that's why I'm mad that I didn't die at all, much less the first five seconds.<br><br>I was close though...

Ahh don't worry iyestorm, i'm sure you'll die someday.