This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I wouldn't know anything about this guy, but the sentence "Taking a further step and arguing that aliens actually existed remained rare." Seems out of place for a Medieval era Pope to say, especially during a time when people mostly took Aristotle's theory for all it was worth, and that there was only the solar system revolving on glass spheres (I believe.) around the earth. - Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a little concerned by the following sentence:
Tempier also overturned Aristotle on one point: God could have created more than one world (given His omnipotence) yet we know by revelation He made only one.
As this is not direct speech (or, at least, it is not marked as such), the structure implies by its use of 'we know' that all those reading share the same point of view. Furthermore, whether Tempier 'overturned' Aristotle or not rather depends on the question of a) there being a god; b) this god being omnipotent; and c) the bible and its contents being facts. As all the previous are matters of faith not fact, we can only logically assert an attempt to overturn Aristotle, as if we reject these arguments, the whole premise collapses. I shall happily assume 'good faith' and accept that this is simply the fault of a slighlty ambiguous turn of phrase. May I suggest something along the lines of: Tempier also attempted to overturn Aristotle on one point: he argued that, if (as he believed)God is omnipotent, he could have created more than one world. However, the Christian bible makes it clear he chose to create only one. I must also take objection to the capitalisation of pronouns. I will live with God being treated as proper noun, but the capitalisation of his and he seems to be favouring the beliefs of certain religions. Something I know Wikipedia is against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)