tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post2724510677402979327..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: The phenomenology of religionLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-27081870416556522502007-03-27T11:26:00.000-06:002007-03-27T11:26:00.000-06:00Furthermore, isn't really just semantics. Even for...Furthermore, isn't really just semantics. Even for something internally consistent, like this definition of God, it might be logically valid, but that doesn't mean the same as <I>correct</I>.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-73402978405810242272007-03-27T10:01:00.000-06:002007-03-27T10:01:00.000-06:00Indeed. One has to give the Deacon a degree of res...Indeed. One has to give the Deacon a degree of respect for at least <I>attempting</I> a phenomenological case.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-48848675463603994192007-03-27T09:57:00.000-06:002007-03-27T09:57:00.000-06:00I've always had a problem with the ontological def...I've always had a problem with the ontological definition of God as evidence for His/Her existence. It seems awfully self-referential, and I mistrust anything that smacks of circular logic.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.com