Do-It-Yourself Deity

The Philosophers' Magazine ^ | Julian Baggini & Jeremy Stangroom

[beavus]

In an attempt to resolve any disagreement surrounding the meaning of the word "God", TPM has assembled a crack team of "metaphysical engineers" who have devised a new computer-modelling virtual environment in which to test the plausibility of different conceptions of God.

Here's how it works. You are invited to select from the list below the attributes which you believe God must have (or the attributes that a being deserving of the name God must have). Metaphysical engineers will then model this conception of God to check out its plausibility.

[Firefigher NC]

Nah, basically what it's saying is that the only God that can exist is a deist God. I'm not even going to participate in flaming on this subject, just going to say "whatever"...

[DeepRed]

Another bunch of Liber-wacko "intelectuals" trying to impose a smug view of what is and isn't God. I don't need them: The bible tells me what God is like.

[k2blader]

People who restrict themselves to philosophy will never know God.

[mrs. a]

I dunno...given the choice, I'll string along with the All-Knowing and All-Loving, as opposed to the "metaphysical engineers"...

[guitarist]

Go to the Philosophy site and see the quotes: Chris Hitchens, Stephen Gould, and all the other evolutionists. Have a "great day", or go to the Lord, and have a real day!

[GSlob]

"Mammon, n. The god of the world's leading religion. His chief temple is in the holy city of New York."
Ambrose Bierce

[LonghornFreeper]

As an actual engineer, I am always amused when people whose job is in no way related to engineering put the word engineer in their title to make themselves sound cool. Sanitation engineer (garbage man), domestic engineer (housewife), the list goes on. In this case, not only are the people not engineers, but their job seems to involve being full of crap all day everyday.

[guitarist]

I see you've posted at least 2 from the philo's. Do you actually like this stuff?

[Technocrat]

Not being full of crap - maye DEALING with crap (of course then they would be more like real engineers :)

[Getready]

Hey, I took the test! Wow, it really made me think!!
Coupla problems....
1) They use the analogy of an item which is not consistent
with itself, such as a four sided triangle..It can't be
they say. Then they call themselves or the judges,
the oxymoronic "metaphysical engineers" Hey dude or dude-ette,you can't engineer what is not physical.That's by
definition.

2) They say the latest physics states that there is nothing
outside our universe...these guys need to read the
"latest physics". The latest physics like to think that
our universe is one of many universes all with their
different physical constants, and parameters as opposed to
ours. Some of these "universes" have conditions favorable
to life, and some don't..How they all got here from the
"cosmic egg", don't ask for it's (now sing after me class)
"not in the realm of the empirical scientist"

Those are just two gross errors in this sophmoric attempt at (I think) humor.
Oh, I forgot, they liked to call God "she", without realizing that that is not in the question as to the gender of the diety.

Their mindful machinations, if indicative of the current
thinking, is pretty weak. They DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT
trust their "DNA and dust" brains to be able to understand
the universe/multiverse.

[catonsville]

I would bet that if we gave all the attributes of the real present God, the metaphysical engineers would tell us he could not exist

[beavus]

I am always amused when people whose job is in no way related to engineering put the word engineer in their title to make themselves sound cool.

They put it in quotes, it is tongue-in-cheek. There is no such profession as metaphysical engineer.

This is really just another exercise in testing logical consistency. Nearly any topic other than god, and it wouldn't even be controversial.

[beavus]

2) They say the latest physics states that there is nothing outside our universe...these guys need to read the "latest physics". The latest physics like to think that our universe is one of many universes all with their different physical constants, and parameters as opposed to ours. Some of these "universes" have conditions favorable to life, and some don't..How they all got here from the "cosmic egg", don't ask for it's (now sing after me class) "not in the realm of the empirical scientist"

Physicists can imagine many things to explain observations, but that doesn't mean observations support what they imagine. You shouldn't put more weight in speculative physics than even physicists do.

[beavus]

Nah, basically what it's saying is that the only God that can exist is a deist God. I'm not even going to participate in flaming on this subject, just going to say "whatever"...

Or you can defeat them with their own medicine and show where their logic falls apart.

[beavus]

I see you've posted at least 2 from the philo's. Do you actually like this stuff?

Are you asking if I like philosophy?

[beavus]

Oh, I forgot, they liked to call God "she", without realizing that that is not in the question as to the gender of the diety.

They are keeping it general. The test isn't for any specific god, but used to test conceptions of gods in general. Your god may be a "he", but another's god may be a "she".

[beavus]

I would bet that if we gave all the attributes of the real present God, the metaphysical engineers would tell us he could not exist

Only if the attributes you list lead to contradictions. The authors probably do presume that contradictions prove impossibility.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Martin Luther would be appalled. God does not need to pass anyone's test of "plausibility". God is inherently implausible, else all would believe. By faith alone can we be saved.

[Junior]

You're fighting a losing battle here. I've been on this forum for seven years and I've come to the conclusion that most of the so-called Christians on these threads confuse their concept of God with God Himself, and are incapable of seeing the distinction. When they discover their concepts of God are logically inconsistent, they get defensive, thinking that someone is try to prove God doesn't exist, rather than realizing it is their concept of God, and not God's existence, being called into question.

You'll find attitudes like this on many subjects because your average American has never been taught to think. The ability to parse an argument has to be taught and requires more mental effort than most folks will be willing to give. Like you, I love Philosophy and took several electives in it, along with a basic Logic course in college. While I will never be considered anything close to expert in either field, the courses opened my eyes to subtexts I'd never even known existed.