Here is something I got from a game, or I would much rather say a quiz, from "Batttleground Gods". My responses included in this colour. Not for the faint-hearted to read. Thanks Royston, for telling me about it. Thanks Kylie, for telling Royston about it. Thanks Crystal, for telling Kylie about it (oh gosh, Crystal doesn't even read this..)

Direct Hit 1
You answered "True" to questions 7 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you claimed that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. A firm, inner conviction can never be certain proof, since we know that people have firm inner convictions about things which are false.

Alright alright. I mistook the first question. It shouldn't be "it is justifiable", but rather "it can be justifiable". But "can be" ain't an option.. I mean, it is a very general statement, to which the response cannot be black or white. And I change my response to the other question too.. Took me some thinking.. It is NOT foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. So in this way I will still get a direct hit anyway.. But I'll explain my stand..

Really, it is impossible to fanthom the ways in which my God works.. I've known of people who just believed in God because of something mysterious in which He did in their lives. Even for myself as a young kid, there was a love coming from God whenever I prayed or worshipped Him; it's just beyond comprehension and I believed. And it was most certainly not a naive faith. But I have to admit that as I grew up and thought more, I did question the naivety of this faith. It took me quite a few encounters with the awesome presence of God (of which I cannot fully explain in words.. God cannot be rationalised, as I will try to explain later), a few answered prayers/miracles and some revelation of the greater good things that come after the bad things that I initially complained about.

But I believe it is possible to simply believe in God just because of this void that He fills or other unexplainable reasons; and you cannot call a child a fool. However, it is sad that this does not occur very often in the adult world.. Or as some may term "the world of mature minds".

****************

Direct Hit 2
You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Frankly speaking, I don't really get this question.. Neither do I get this reponse. Can I hold back any comments until someone helps me clarify this?

But I just can't resist letting some science out.. scientifically speaking, we cannot determine for the sure the existence of the Loch Ness Monster unless we prove either way by scientific experimentation. So its existence is to be kept in doubt.
****************
Direct Hit 3
You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

Misinterpretation mentioned earlier.. (this philosophical stuff is making my brain tired..)

****************
Direct Hit 4
You answered "True" to questions 13 and 17.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! You claimed earlier that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists, but now you say it is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists. However, a firm inner conviction can never be certain proof, since many people have firm inner convictions about things about which they are wrong (such as the guilt or innocence of suspects, for example). So, by your own lights, your last answer was a foolish one!

Mistake mentioned earlier.

****************
Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

Bitten Bullet 1
You answered "True" to Question 16.
This answer generated the following response:
You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

Fyi, they say that "This occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable."

But ultimately, we can't argue God out. Logical reasoning with God does not always work... I think most obviously to me is that God's will is really really incomprehensible. Currently any rationalising with me about God's will will be kept fairly short. I think there are books out there where authors actually try to explain why God allows suffering and death. I have not read them.

Oh well, so much for now. I'll continue after the exams.

{+}-{+}-{+}-{+}