I agree, some of the questions are pretty confusing…. also, I disagree with some of their reasoning.
“You answered True to questions 6 and 13.
These answers generated the following response:
You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true – even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God’s existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So You’ve got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.”
So, ok, there is no ‘certain, irrevocable proof’ of evolution; but there is ‘overwhelming evidence’... Disregarding their somewhat contradictory reasoning, there is no ‘overwhelming evidence’ of the existence of God, which to my mind puts evolution in the lead. So I bit the bullet. Next:
“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.”
I answered these the way I did because Nessie, by popular definition, would have to exist in a finite, measurable and searchable area. God, by popular definition, would not. We have the capability of searching an earthly body of water, but not the cosmos.
And yeah, what’s up with the square circles? lol