A Scientific Experiment


#1

One could justify our purpose through the tools of what one knows about the grand plan(scripture,dogma,etc) and of science. He can search for indicators that the grand plan is sincere and genuine. He can place situations in a scientific context with hopes finally it can’t be explained through science, and it must acknowedge the loss and give up the title to the grand plan purpose.

I compare with science. I could draw on hypotheticals to see if my theory fits.

   Given : God loves us all with Fatherly love. 

Test # 421- I find I could feign love for an aware sentient being I have created. The love then could have a double meaning. For the being I created I wish it to have a meaning of a sincere affectionate genuine love, but in reality it serves a practical purpose, and that is merely another factor along with passions I will use in a test. After all, I could recreate this being even to the point a microsecond prior to it’s extermination and start over. Love is just another something I can quantify and write the results on a clipboard. I can measure the beings reaction to me telling it I have unlimited affection toward it. I will assign points relative to the degree of doubt it harbours. So love could fit in a scientific experiment as well. But I will need another persuading event for his initial proper frame of mind…

   Given: ".. gave His only begotten son"

The being I created, one of many, is intelligent and able to reason. I will create another being from my own essence, to be born of a virgin and he will mortally die to redeem the being of it’s offences to me. He will be told it is out of pure love for him I am doing it and his suffering will be exactly like his would be in the same circumstances. I won’t mention to him that it will not be exactly the same, allowing myself some privledge as a creator should have, and that is, he would not have to have the additional suffering of faith and concern for his destiny, for I will not allow him to become extinct. I can not allow devine risk of course, so I devise a limited risk scenerio and pass on the info that it is genuine. I pick up my clipboard. I place a sticky angel in front of the names of those who believe all of it, a star for those who think it but go along in silence out of fear they may be discovered as lacking in trust, and a devil for those who outright state the obvious.

    Given: no choice of non existance.

test # 345 I am a being capable of forseeing destiny and of altering the future. I must have this scientific test accomplished, that is the object of all this human experience. After creating the being I told it it must do as I tell it or it cannot join me. I told it it will suffer eternally in burning fire if it does not obey me. (I hope he doesn’t notice the niches for humans I already carved out in hell, Test #651). It told me it had no desire to go on and asked for it’s non-existance. It said it wasn’t worth it. I’m at a quandry. I am a responsible being and responsible for the things I create. I can handle this situation in different ways. I could allow a warranted just measure of his not having a choice and allow for non-existance. If he did not have justice on his side, I would squash this little upstart for not being greatful. I tried to persuade him how wonderful things could be if he wished and how he could offer charitable recognition of my omnipotent presence while enjoying my graces, and join me after the test is over. I made a decision. I opted for the test and rejected the justice option, and indeed made a point to make this scene a test criteria. He’s going to be tested if he wants to or not. If he fails I can say he didn’t pass through his own fault and take out my burn clipboard to see how many BTUs he is capable of. No telling what the figures will show. I can hide the fact he asked not to exist.

   (Part II below)

#2

(Part II)

I could go on with other examples, but the point is nothing revealed proves sincerity and genuine love. We live on the word of God only. We are controless pieces on some grand game of snakes and ladders. We have it from Him alone that things will happen the way He says. True love in the human sense lives alongside with risk appropriate for our nature. Devine love would imply risk appropriate for Devine nature. Nothing we request and He says will grant, has ever been consistent and reliable and we are afraid to admit it. The unconditional promise is broken when people receive snakes when they ask for fish, the trillions of requests to date to be delivered from evil in the Lord’s prayer as never been proven to be granted. All this are indicators of a scientific purpose.

Every event,feeling,state,communication,idea,desire,etc can have a detached scientific purpose as well as being genuine, and even the belief in the degree of detachment can be quantified. All this possible for the Devine to employ whichever method He wishes, nor does He have to lay sincere cards on the table, and we can never know for sure. We trust because we have no other option, our situation has an element of coersion. A fairer scenerio would be the third option of non-existance, as this would be consistent with this one unique case of not having controlling choice. But this justice is reserved for other beings, not for humans. Evidence suggests a scientific purpose so far.

    Andy

#3

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.