i hate it. true / false questions like that piss me off, cuz they never include all the variables, and they don't let you explain.
or maybe i really am logically inconsistant. either way,
boo.
my little man died... all my contradictions stemmed from their understanding of God's power and will. they seem to assume that God can arbitrarily decide matters of morals, science etc as He sees fit. i was assuming that all of God's moral and reasonable truths stem from His own truth, and got beat up for it. stupid philosophers.
haha, ya, a couple of times I had to make a true of false choice when it wasn't that simple. The key is looking for the principle behind the question, which is normally something true of false. I got boned in a lock ness monster question because of it. I read to far into the question, and used the lack of evidence as positive evidence that there was no monster, when in actuality, it was more like "Well, it might be there, it depends on what tests they did to look for it." I was forced to contradict myself when I said atheists couldn’t use negative proof to say there was no God.
And Dan, I believe exactly what you stated, and I got through with only one shot. Early on they try and trick you by asking if God can do anything. He cannot. He has the power to do anything, which is a later question, but he cannot just do anything. This is because he cannot contradict his nature. God is morally perfect, because we get our ideas about morality from what God is. My guess is this is where you went wrong.
Aron - I did exactly the same thing you did. My only hit was with the lochness monster/atheist questions.
Good times
(look at that - philosophy class may be coming in handy after all - kidding. that was my favourite class out of the whole year i think. *sigh* i miss it)
Comments (4)
i hate it.
true / false questions like that piss me off, cuz they never include all the variables, and they don't let you explain.
or maybe i really am logically inconsistant.
either way,
boo.
my little man died... all my contradictions stemmed from their understanding of God's power and will. they seem to assume that God can arbitrarily decide matters of morals, science etc as He sees fit. i was assuming that all of God's moral and reasonable truths stem from His own truth, and got beat up for it. stupid philosophers.
haha, ya, a couple of times I had to make a true of false choice when it wasn't that simple. The key is looking for the principle behind the question, which is normally something true of false. I got boned in a lock ness monster question because of it. I read to far into the question, and used the lack of evidence as positive evidence that there was no monster, when in actuality, it was more like "Well, it might be there, it depends on what tests they did to look for it." I was forced to contradict myself when I said atheists couldn’t use negative proof to say there was no God.
And Dan, I believe exactly what you stated, and I got through with only one shot. Early on they try and trick you by asking if God can do anything. He cannot. He has the power to do anything, which is a later question, but he cannot just do anything. This is because he cannot contradict his nature. God is morally perfect, because we get our ideas about morality from what God is. My guess is this is where you went wrong.
Aron - I did exactly the same thing you did. My only hit was with the lochness monster/atheist questions.
Good times
(look at that - philosophy class may be coming in handy after all - kidding. that was my favourite class out of the whole year i think. *sigh* i miss it)
Comments are closed.