Philosophy tests

My Moral Parsimony Score is 88% basically I valued inaction over action but otherwise was consistantly untilitarian. I actualy oppose this sort of distinction but I also don't trust hypotheticals that talk about "you could save person X if" but I do trust hypotheticals that say "you could hurt person X" resulting in weak obligations to donate to charity - but strong ones to not poison someone.

what is god creates a list of objections to your concept of god.

I think this is unsubstantiated
"But this response seems to rest on a misunderstanding of the nature of physical laws. Laws in the legal sense do require law-givers and law-enforcers. But physical laws are simply descriptions of the nature of reality."

Also I dont think this is impossible in itself
"In the model, God was asked to make 2 + 2 = 5 (where all the terms hold their common meanings). She could not do so and the model broke down. It seems that no being can ever do what is logically impossible."
I suggest 5 would just become 4 in that example (as well as 5) except in as far as part of the definition of 5 is that it is NOT 4 (which is what they mean I guess but they were sneeky in not saying clearly).
One could say a perfectly rational being would never have such a desire so it would never matter - does that prevent the omnipotence?

battleground god I bit a bullet and tok no direct hits!