ellauri100.html on line 557: The idea behind the IAT is that concepts with very closely related (vs. unrelated) mental representations are more easily and quickly responded to as a single unit. For example, if “European American” and “good” are strongly associated in one’s mind, it should be relatively easy to respond quickly to this pairing by pressing the “E” or “I” key. If “European American” and “good” are NOT strongly associated, it should be more difficult to respond quickly to this pairing. By comparing reaction times on this test, the IAT gives a relative measure of how strongly associated the two categories (European Americans, African Americans) are to mental representations of “good” and “bad”. Each participant receives a single score, and your score appears below.
ellauri153.html on line 358:

“God is omnipotent” is true at game history w if and only if God has a winning strategy in the justice-of-God game G. Tässähän se tapahtuu se suuri lässähdys. Muka omnipotentti jumala saa häthätää saatanasta matin loppupeleissä. Matkan varrella isokyrpäinen valas voi syödä vaikka kaikki sen nappulat paizi kurkon, joka jää viimeisenä laudalle. Aika lohduttavaa sen muulle tiimille. One can make a few clarifying remarks about the structure of the game. The form of the game is relatively simple: it’s an ordinary extended-form perfect information game. tuskinpa Jobilla oli täydellistä informaatiota pelitilanteesta tai edes pelin säännöistä, muista pelaajista puhumattakaan. Aika isoja informaatiojoukkoja oli niiden kalloissa. Sitäpaizi ei luonnossa pelaajat siirrä vuoronperään, vaan koko ajan, niinkuin differentiaalipeleissä. . The goal is here not to go deeply into technical details, but to construct an übersichtlich representation for the theological grammar of biblical stories and to highlight the uses of terms like “good” and “omnipotent” in them. The game or model can then be used as a simplified fragment that can be projected onto, contrasted with and used to interpret biblical stories. The point of this clarification is to highlight the grammar of the divine properties “good” and “omnipotent” within the logic of the struggle myth, and to get the consistency of {God is good, God is omnipotent, There is chaotic evil} as in the Book of Job. The argument needs two assumptions. First, the games between God, humans and creation are genuine dialogues. Paskanmarjat, ei nää ole edes mitään signaling gameja, puhumattakaan dialogipeleistä. Olis kannattanut lukea mun väitöskirja Dialogue Games, siinä on oikeeta sananvaihtoa. The players answer each other and thus have to take turns in making moves and participating in them. Then the game of Job and the struggle against chaos is in extended form to represent the sequence of the debate, and its resolution gives the drama of the fight against kid chaos. Second, the properties of God like “omnipotent” and “good” are defined against the background of Job’s encounter with God and the struggle against chaos. This redefinition builds on both James’ reinterpretation of the properties of God in terms of religious practices, and also of Job’s new world of faith in the encounter. Job’s encounter with God and the struggle against chaos are modelled in the game, so such properties of God as “good” and “omnipotent” are then internal to the game. Missä kohtaa Jopilla on tässä jotain pelivaraa? Montako valintaruutua Jobilla edes on: Marise-älä marise, ja Pyllistä-älä pyllistä. Siinä kaikki. Jotta jumalan tiimi voittaisi, sen pitää ensin marista ja sit pyllistää. Nain on meidankin elamassamme! Marise mitä mariset, mut muista pyllistää!
ellauri153.html on line 420: words “God”, “good” and “omnipotent”. This leads to confusions, as sufficient reasons for divine
3