A few too many either or answers that I think should have had a "neither" option.

That was fun, though I disagreed with every time it claimed I had to bite a bullet (once) or took a direct hit (twice). On the bite the bullet one, they were assuming the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" fallacy. Surprising they made that mistake. And I said that if if there was a God it could do anything, but it could not make a square circle. They interpreted that as a contradiction, but it's not. States of affairs the description of which are self-contractory are not things to do. Being self-contradictory, they are null sets. If they're logically impossible to do, they're literally nothing (nothing real or possible), and hence nothing is being referred to for a hypothetical God to do. In other words, if God existed, such a being should be able to do any THING, but self-contradictory definitions don't refer to anything.

They also said I was contradicting myself when I said that is is justifiable to believe in something based on a firm inner conviction, and yet I said that it was not justifiable that that rapist guy to claim he was raping by God's will. I said that it's justifiable to believe in something based on an inner conviction. I didn't say that it's ALWAYS justifiable to do that. Some beliefs are more reasonable than others. They were assuming that rationality is only based on empirical evidence, which is false.

So I actually got through unscathed, but they were the ones being irrational. Ha!