![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
What is the "first PO cause argument"? We need to be told Myrvin ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Seconded by Cowtowne - that phrase is entirely OBSCURE as demonstrated by Mr Google here:
http :// bit .ly /71I8Dq Accept my apology, my prose is
jabbery. Maybe clever, or perhaps quite a brickhead... Initial theory is the two letters "PO" are spurious, typos, and stand for nothing. Why's this error unfixed for five months, when it is the leading sentence of a complex, erudite, pedantic synopsis.
http :// bit.ly /52yUhU (redact teh spaces)
=> revised theory; and a workable conclusion. "PO" has no context. Inclusion of undeclared abbreviations is surely ill-advised. Perhaps... PM =Prime Mover. Because this article appears to be unattended... it will get some TLC with this micro-tweak from me. ( sorry if this oversteps the protocol... alas, you are duly notified herein) So much for the 35minutes wasted upon this glimmer of incomplete scholarship which was confounding. Ciao from Cowe Cowtowne ( talk) 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)≈
There would seem to be a good deal of overlap with Philosophical theology William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, part of the (unsourced, btw) text reads: " Theologians, distinct from philosophers of religion, often consider the existence of God as axiomatic or self-evident and explain, justify or support religious claims by rationalization or intuitive metaphors." However, looking at the list of philosophers of religion, a great deal of them are theologians - and famous ones at that. In other words: It appears fairly meaningless to try and make such a sharp division between theologians and philosophers of religion, unless you want to remove the designation of philosopher of religion from such characters as Augustine of Hippo or St. Thomas Aquinas, who may fit the category of philosophical theology anyway. Mojowiha ( talk) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The text here seems too closely related to its single source, section 2 of Hiddenness of God at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The article about " Philosophical theology" presents an intellectual argument put forward seemingly largely by one individual Mortimer J. Adler, about the nature of the philosophy of religion - attempting to draw a distinction between what he calls "philosophical theology" by religious outsiders, such as Aristotle, and Natural theology, by insiders. Its most appropriate place would likely be as a much-contracted entry in the philosophy of religion article (and possibly as a mentioned criticism on the Natural theology page. As it stands, having an article entitled Philosophical theology provides significant scope for confusion with the Philosophy of religion and Religious philosophy pages to the extent that casual readers could readily be confused. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
What is the "first PO cause argument"? We need to be told Myrvin ( talk) 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Seconded by Cowtowne - that phrase is entirely OBSCURE as demonstrated by Mr Google here:
http :// bit .ly /71I8Dq Accept my apology, my prose is
jabbery. Maybe clever, or perhaps quite a brickhead... Initial theory is the two letters "PO" are spurious, typos, and stand for nothing. Why's this error unfixed for five months, when it is the leading sentence of a complex, erudite, pedantic synopsis.
http :// bit.ly /52yUhU (redact teh spaces)
=> revised theory; and a workable conclusion. "PO" has no context. Inclusion of undeclared abbreviations is surely ill-advised. Perhaps... PM =Prime Mover. Because this article appears to be unattended... it will get some TLC with this micro-tweak from me. ( sorry if this oversteps the protocol... alas, you are duly notified herein) So much for the 35minutes wasted upon this glimmer of incomplete scholarship which was confounding. Ciao from Cowe Cowtowne ( talk) 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)≈
There would seem to be a good deal of overlap with Philosophical theology William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, part of the (unsourced, btw) text reads: " Theologians, distinct from philosophers of religion, often consider the existence of God as axiomatic or self-evident and explain, justify or support religious claims by rationalization or intuitive metaphors." However, looking at the list of philosophers of religion, a great deal of them are theologians - and famous ones at that. In other words: It appears fairly meaningless to try and make such a sharp division between theologians and philosophers of religion, unless you want to remove the designation of philosopher of religion from such characters as Augustine of Hippo or St. Thomas Aquinas, who may fit the category of philosophical theology anyway. Mojowiha ( talk) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The text here seems too closely related to its single source, section 2 of Hiddenness of God at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The article about " Philosophical theology" presents an intellectual argument put forward seemingly largely by one individual Mortimer J. Adler, about the nature of the philosophy of religion - attempting to draw a distinction between what he calls "philosophical theology" by religious outsiders, such as Aristotle, and Natural theology, by insiders. Its most appropriate place would likely be as a much-contracted entry in the philosophy of religion article (and possibly as a mentioned criticism on the Natural theology page. As it stands, having an article entitled Philosophical theology provides significant scope for confusion with the Philosophy of religion and Religious philosophy pages to the extent that casual readers could readily be confused. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)