@Adrian. Quite so and technically correct. Especially means to a very great extent. However I know of know theologian nor philosphers who takes a Christian worldview who take a different stance to the one I have taken. How could they their god took on a personal material form. So I think this is semantics. For the avoidance of doubt I will restate my orginal post to assert christian theism as opposed to theism in general. I thought that was taken as read on a Christian thread? That says nothing for rhizo in terms of:
- validity of the syllogism to disprove mine, which is invalid
- The validity of refuting the original post on the basis of incredulity which is wrong
- That deism and pantheism are forms of theism. Which in general they are, but clearly in the specific they are not.
- validity of the syllogism to disprove mine, which is invalid
- The validity of refuting the original post on the basis of incredulity which is wrong
- That deism and pantheism are forms of theism. Which in general they are, but clearly in the specific they are not.
