Posted on 06/25/2005 7:08:43 PM PDT by beavus
It isn't about any god so much as it is about what you think of god. It is you who is being tested.
I troll for thoughtful responders such as you. When I find one, it isn't a waste of time.
I must have misunderstood: "Metaphysical engineers will then model this conception of God to check out its plausibility." Plausible to whom?
"this conception of God" refers to your conception as revealed by this test.
"plausibility" of your conception refers to (1) logical consistency, and (2) compatibility with what has been observed about the universe. The latter is the reason they assign a "plausibility quotient" rather than just a "possibile/impossible" label.
Can metaphysical engineer make rock so big they can't lift it?
Or a tree so silent you can't hear it fall?
That certainly says something about F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary
Yep. Any religion is defined by the presence of priestly class supported by the contributions from the flock - hence by "collection plate" in the most general sense of the word. Thus these "metaphysicists" would do well to start from this point: God has a collection plate for his clergy. All other attributes could and do vary.
I found this exercise to be funny rather than illuminating. So in a "model" created by imperfect human beings, the imperfect "God" of this model could not do something that by human logic, is impossible. Oooookay. I understand all-powerful to mean God can do anything He wants to do. That's as far as I have to take it. That's all I as a human need to understand, because that's how God would relate to His creation.
I also take great exception to their definition of "personal relationship". I don't see why logic dictates that you cannot have a personal relationship with a being that is significantly different from yourself. The metaphysicists state, Personal relationships appear to depend on a number of things. Sufficient similarity between the persons in the relationship is one. Another is that both are persons, or are, at least, person-like.
But God is a person. God created us to be capable of being quite similar to Him, as far as personal attributes. The capacity to love. The capacity to comprehend. The capacity for justice, wisdom, mercy. Music, dance, creativity, and the appreciation of same. Who gets to decide how different is TOO different? I have a personal relationship with God. We communicate, on a level both of us can understand, it's not like baby-talking to a cat. The more I learn about God and the more we communicate, the closer we become, just like any other two people.
Do you like the endless philosophical quotes, that try to make sense of the world without the acknowledgement that we are created by God...
Then they went on to tell me why my God was implausible using arguments that have many times been proven to be invalid or incomplete.
I then selected none of the options and my deity received the highest plausibility quotient of 1.0.
Basically they're telling me that my non-deity could exist, because there is nothing about my deity that conflicts with there precoceive ideas of what God should be or can/can not do.
What a crock!
Like children playing with TinkerToys, but who think they are actually building something.
I got a 1.0
I did the same and got a so-called "plausibility quotient" of .2! Oh well; at least they didn't tell me that the God of the Bible was totally IMplausible with a quotient of 0.0.
and they never tire of their worn out arguments against a God they don't believe in.
What were your selections?
There were selections?
Professor Gould is no longer able to defend his positions, as he is now dead. Still, it is possible that he might have responded to your post wryly if he ever were to have actually read it. Consider this quote below, taken from an interview which he gave to Salon a few years ago.
“That's why there are all these old tales in scholastic philosophy about the brothers who were arguing about how many teeth there were in the mouth of a horse. And the young novitiate says, why don't we go out and count old Dobbin's teeth? And they practically throw him out, because that's ridiculous -- old Dobbin's teeth has nothing to do with how many teeth there are in a horse's mouth! “
S.J. Gould
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.