Bibliographic record
Abstract
The core of the papers gathered here were first presented at a conference on the philosophy of religion hosted by the International Institute for Hermeneutics at Mount Allison University (New Brunswick) in August 2006.Other papers were solicited by the editors to round out a historical retrieval of the proofs for God's existence.The editors would like to thank all who contributed papers to the volume, as well as everyone involved in the Mount Allison meeting, the presenters, many of whom joined us from Europe, Mount Allison philosophy students who assisted in the organization of the conference, and the president of Mount Allison University, Dr. Robert Campbell, who helped bring the whole event to actuality by a crucial infusion of funds at the last minute.Last but not least, I would like to thank Michael Austin for his invaluable editorial assistance.The proofs for God invariably disappoint the questions which give rise to them.These questions belong to three different forms of the absolute question, corresponding to three religious attitudes: faith, agnosticism, and gnosis.The question of the absolute (objective genitive) is directed to the absolute, it is the absolute's question.As such the question may dare to address God as a divine person.Thus conceived the absolute question is a work of faith.Here is the nub of the tradition, faith seeking understanding as Anselm, improvising on Augustine put it.The question may also be a question about the absolute, the question that raises the problem of the questionability of the absolute.As such the question is the expression of agnosticism.The absolute question can be thought of, finally, as the question of the absolute (subjective genitive), the question which originates in the absolute, which has something of the absolute about it, a question which is itself an indication or expression of the absolute.Here we may ask about the possibility of a kind of pre-knowledge of the absolute, a variety of gnosis, informing and driving the intellect in a certain direction: grasping in an inexpressible experience something of the reality of the absolute, and inflamed by a longing for the fullness of absolute knowledge and
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".