Anyway, I think this page makes very little sense as it is, and needs to be moved to commentary. Even as commentary, it needs to be radically altered to be of much use. Perhaps a multi dimensional matrix would allow you to separate our the different questions. But since I think most of the questions don't lend themselves to a scalar representation, since they present only a small number of possible answers, which are distinct and non-contiguous. In other words: either god exists, or he does not; either there's either one god or there are many gods; either god is defined as a non-contingent being, or he is not. |
Anyway, I think this page makes very little sense as it is, and needs to be moved to commentary. Even as commentary, it needs to be radically altered to be of much use. Perhaps a multi dimensional matrix would allow you to separate our the different questions. But since I think most of the questions don't lend themselves to a scalar representation, since they present only a small number of possible answers, which are distinct and non-contiguous. In other words: either god exists, or he does not; either there's either one god or there are many gods; either god is defined as a non-contingent being, or he is not. :...or there is no 'he', but... |
Unless I see a specific responce to the points made above, and in LMS's post, i'll be moving the text of this article to [wikipedia comentary]? tomorow (thursday October 17th). MRC |
Unless I see a specific responce to the points made above, and in LMS's post, i'll be moving the text of this article to Wikipedia commentary tomorow (thursday October 17th). MRC |
Hmm, ok
I don't think that most or even many theists believe that "they have adequate evidence" for God's existence. They just believe that God exists, period. It's possible to believe stuff without enough evidence, isn't it? Theists like Kierkegaard actually thought that the absense of evidence and the contradictions in their religion strengthened their faith. --AxelBoldt
Anyway, I think this page makes very little sense as it is, and needs to be moved to commentary. Even as commentary, it needs to be radically altered to be of much use. Perhaps a multi dimensional matrix would allow you to separate our the different questions. But since I think most of the questions don't lend themselves to a scalar representation, since they present only a small number of possible answers, which are distinct and non-contiguous. In other words: either god exists, or he does not; either there's either one god or there are many gods; either god is defined as a non-contingent being, or he is not.
Anyway, in order to turn this into something which accurately describes the way beliefs about the divine actually exist, it would need to be radically changed. MRC
Unless I see a specific responce to the points made above, and in LMS's post, i'll be moving the text of this article to Wikipedia commentary tomorow (thursday October 17th). MRC