Rhythm Wrote:It matters very little if you think a creator bird is less plausible unless you can show why it is less plausible. It isn't a tangent, I'm checking for false positives in your scale, and attempting to show you how easy it is to reduce this scale to the absurd. If this scale business is useful then I shouldn't be able to insert 80 foot creator birds or immaterial strawberry shortcake and ave it return similar (or in this case, more plausible) results than your plausible god..now should I?
Ok, I understand now what is it you're getting at. I don't see how it's absurd that arbitrary qualities like species and size can get accepted into the set. I just think it's trivial because the scale is merely reflecting 'non-physical' attributes. It's kind of like describing someone and saying e.g. they're smart as opposed to describing material properties like the colour of their hair. So, by all means, you can insert gods that have a certain shape and size, but I don't see it as useful or damaging to the scale's functionality.
With creation, let's get some stuff clear. So you and I definitely see it as impossible for a god to intervene. Now, you say the act of creation itself is in a way intervening, but creation doesn't contradict with reality. So when you say it doesn't contradict with reality I take it you mean some "other means" that was responsible for the universe wouldn't contradict reality? Now, on the topic of creation being intervention, I don't think it could be called intervention. Prior to creation there is nothing to intervene in. After creation, matter exists for you to intervene with but, as we agreed, no plausible god does intervene.
Oh, p.s. I responded to the rest of your other post which you were editing as I finished replying to it.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
