full by definition
The only philosophy game I know (insofar as any game is not a game of philosophy) is Battleground God, which forced me to deal with this little chestnut:
Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful).
I think I lost interest somewhere around the nested parenthetical, but see how you do.
Posted by kevin slavin at April 08, 2003 07:34 PMMy brain hurts. Why did you do that to me?
Ouch.
I did okay (bit one bullet, took one hit) but felt I was shot in the back with the evolution "theory" nit.
Good link.
Posted by: tmonkey on April 9, 2003 01:40 AMYou suffered 1 direct hit and bit zero bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.10 bullets
tmonkey, I'm more internally consistent than you!
Posted by: dbrown on April 9, 2003 10:28 AMBrought me back to the SAT days where I played the game rather than get played by the game (and got burned a couple times). Where the test doesn't really sit well with me is the idea that it assumes that having a higher standard of proof for two different theories is a bad thing. Bad enough to be shot for.
Posted by: tmonkey on April 9, 2003 01:24 PM