Reply #18: Ok, so if I understand, you did contradict yourself, right?

[greyl]

Now you're using the Kierkegaard 'defense' from the OP?: "Of course, you may go along with thinkers such as Kierkegaard and believe that religious belief does not need to be rationally consistent. But that takes us beyond the scope of this activity, which is about the extent to which your beliefs are rationally consistent, not whether this is a good or a bad thing."

Point blank: The test doesn't claim that God is subject to what we see as the limits of rationality. I'm still convinced that the test itself stands on its own.