This has not been a lackluster summer at Myles Junior Think Tank. At the suggestion of a colleague, we have been working on the problem of God’s intelligence.
This is a difficult problem, not least because to our knowledge no thinker, be he or she a philosopher or a scientist, has been able to solve it. A quick click through Google will confirm our initial guess that many have seen fit to tackle this conundrum, but the most elementary logic dictates that there is a vast difference between tackling a problem and solving it.
The initial phase of our solution, which the regulars at the Hôtel Adiós Watering Hole have come to call Myles’ Theory of Ultimate Intelligence, consisted of creating a two-column table. Column A contains a list of facts that redound to God’s credit as creator and sustainer of the universe—for example, Yosemite Valley, the Mud Pots in Yellowstone National Park, the sunsets at the Grand Canyon, and the healthy, hearty orgasms a young married couple are wont to enjoy before that activity has borne fruit. Column B contains a list of negative facts that are attributable to God’s activity as creator and sustainer of the universe—for example, war, poverty, illiteracy, social injustice, and child pornography.
Having finished this relatively awesome task, we considered the problem of choosing a post-two-column step in the construction of my theory. This step consists of determining a method for working with our data.
After a thorough discussion we determined, a priori, that we should divide God’s credit by his or her negative results. We then agreed, again a priori, that we would assign an IQ score to the result of this mathematical calculation, taking an IQ of 100 as our base. In other words, we determined that if the result of our calculation were >1, God’s IQ would be over 100, and by a factor the complexity of which is inappropriate for discussion in a short piece. Contrarily, if the result were <1, God’s IQ would be less than 100, etc.
The discerning reader will immediately recognize that I have omitted the question of variables. That is to say, I have not mentioned the values that must be assigned to the items in both God’s credits and his/her negative facts.
We at MJTT were not unaware of this sub-problem. We solved it in the fairest, most accurate way we could: we polled the audience at the Hôtel Adiós Watering Hole, asking such questions as whether and to what degree the plus (+) of a Grand Canyon sunset overrode the minus (–) of the wars in which the World (W) has recently been embroiled.
But to the results of our labor. According to my theory, God’s IQ is 107.364.