I got a direct hit because of a contradiction between question 5 (I answered true) and question 16 (I answered false).
Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something, that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood the meaning of "create".
Squares and circles are not physical things. They are mathematical concepts. We don't create them, we imagine them. Likewise, the fact that 1+1=2 (and not 72) is only based on mathematical concepts. Actually 1+1=2 is not even a fact, that's a tautology. It says nothing about our world[1].
Of course, an omnipotent God could totally make us believe that 1+1=72, or that square circles actually exist in our world. But that wouldn't make it true. That just would make us irrational.
[1]: the concept itself says nothing, but of course, the fact that we thought the concept says a lot about us and our universe.
It's an annoying philosophical problem. Mainly it's concerned with a long-running debate of how one should define "omnipotent" for the Philosopher's God. Consider the problem, "Can God make a block so heavy even he cannot move it?" Disregarding the problems with physics here, most philosophers agree that omnipotence should be complete power over all things which are logically possible. Whatever system such a God creates, things will operate consistently within that system. Of course, altering the system is fine, but then "logic" would still continue to be consistent in the new system.
I had exactly the same hit, and thought the same as you.
Perhaps I am naïve, but short of manipulating my neurons directly there is no way a god could reconfigure the universe around me such that 1+1=72. And if a god were to manipulate my neurons directly, it would say nothing about the truthfulness of the statement.
I don't think you really believe that god can do anything. Wouldn't a god that can do anything truly be able to do anything, even logically inconsistent things?
You to me seem to believe that god can do a great many things but not anything. Your answer to 5 doesn't seem to be your actual belief.
First, I don't believe in God, so this isn't a matter of belief but a matter of definition.
Second, I have no problem with God creating a world where the principle of contradiction doesn't hold. What I have a problem with, is God modifying a realm that depend only on a set of fixed definitions. This is not impossible, this is unthinkable.
Also, we have complete control over such realms. These are just concepts. There is no notion of "can" or "can't" there. Mathematical realms are just self consistent. By definition. So, talking about what God "can" or "can't" do in these realms is meaningless.
Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something, that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood the meaning of "create".
Squares and circles are not physical things. They are mathematical concepts. We don't create them, we imagine them. Likewise, the fact that 1+1=2 (and not 72) is only based on mathematical concepts. Actually 1+1=2 is not even a fact, that's a tautology. It says nothing about our world[1].
Of course, an omnipotent God could totally make us believe that 1+1=72, or that square circles actually exist in our world. But that wouldn't make it true. That just would make us irrational.
[1]: the concept itself says nothing, but of course, the fact that we thought the concept says a lot about us and our universe.