Battleground God

[genkaus]

I took a bullet with regards to the Loch Ness monster and God's existence question and I wish to find out the irrationality in it. Since the test did not provide any area of discussion, I'll present it here.

Now, if the Loch Ness monster exists, it's existence does not invalidate any established concepts about reality. It is simply a species which was hitherto unknown. So the standard of proof I go with there is simply observation.

The existence of god, on the other hand, invalidates the axioms of existence themselves. Axioms such as law of existence and law of identity upon which the entire field of logic rests. So, in face of apparent observation of an entity such as god, I would demand that either the flaw in logic be found or the observation be chalked up to an error. That would be my higher standard of proof.

I don't see the contradiction here. Can anyone help me?

[Epimethean]

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!