Apriorism

Google+

Google+

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The facts should be allowed to test principles. (44) (of truth my add).

To start with the principles from the first (a priori) and to use them for the basis for accepting or rejecting facts is the 'wrong way around'. (44).

The fallacy of apriorism. (44).

The author explains that too much primacy is given to principles so that they might not be modified by what is observed. (44).

Is other words, principles are not allowed to be modified by observable evidence and facts.

Unwarranted presumptions are rejecting relevant evidence and facts. (44).

The author cites 'My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts.' (45).

Not only could many religious persons be accused of holding such an approach but many non-religious persons as well....

Pirie wisely writes that this fallacy is 'unproductive' (45). Facts and truth being dismissed.

Vancouver

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595).

Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666).

Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595).

Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Antiquitam, argumentum ad

Switzerland: Google+

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Antiquitam, argumentum ad

It is the fallacy of assuming something is good or right simply because it is old. (42).

A possible objection to Christian orthodoxy and Biblical orthodoxy arises; that is the assumption that this type of fallacious reasoning is used in preserving these doctrines over progressive alternatives.

I will not write (speak) for others but antiquity is not primary in my reasoning in holding to Biblical, Christian doctrines.

Those doctrines are primarily held to because Scripture is supported by thousands of manuscript copies in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Certain scribes and writers within these religious communities were inspired by God to write supernaturally revealed, consistent, reasonable, theological messages from Genesis to Revelation, from creation and the fall to the atonement and resurrection work of Christ to the last things.

The Scripture is reasonable and sound religious history that leads to sound theology and is parallelled by sound philosophy of religion in support.

The antiquity in itself is not sufficient reason by itself alone, for Christian faith and philosophy. It can lend support, but when reasonable through argument.

Yes, every worldview has its difficulties. Theodicy and the problem of evil, which I dealt with for twelve years academically (I believe successfully, although I do not have infinite knowledge) being a primarily Christian worldview example, but I also examined other worldviews and find the Christian worldview least problematic.

Back to Pirie:

He comments that there is 'nothing in the age of belief or an assertion which alone makes it right.' (42).

I would agree, because the soundness of arguments, the quality of premises and conclusions is far more important than antiquity.

In this realm we have several old religions, of say more that one hundred years old, that contradict each other on several major points.

Contrary to what many state, these religions cannot all be essentially true in regard to the nature of God and salvation due to contradictions. For example, Biblical Christianity claiming the exclusivity of Christ for salvation in relation to the Father (John 8, 10, 14, 1 John). The deity of Christ, as God the Son within the Trinity, and his atonement and resurrection work for salvation alone by grace through faith, notably contrasting Christianity with Islam, for example, which denies these.

Pirie states that this fallacy economizes thought and eliminates difficult decision making. (42).

He writes that to hold to the old way of doing things does not make it right and does not make it wrong, even if this reasoning has taken place for thousands of years. (43).

It is fallacious to place too much emphasis on antiquity in deciding whether or not the old way is right or if it is wrong.

Anecdote

Google+

Back to the Pirie text:

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The author explains an anecdote is a particular story. (41). In contrast, a general assertion explains what occurs in general. (41). An anecdote does not prove or demonstrate the general assertion wrong, but only that something happened in a particular case. (41). The counter-example does indeed prove or demonstrate the general assertion is not universal. (41). The anecdote does not disprove the general assertion. The anecdote does not disprove what generally happens. (41).

'To counter an argument of principle with a few contrary cases is to enter the fallacy of anecdotal reasoning'. (42)

Anecdotal fallacy has similarities to accident fallacy, also in Pirie's text and discussed on this site in two articles. Both involve general and specific cases and arguments. The philosophical red flag that comes to mind is the danger of making what is specific, general and what is general, specific.

Cited

Internet Encycolpedia of Philosophy

'Anecdotal Evidence

This is fallacious generalizing on the basis of a some story that provides an inadequate sample. If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence.

Example:

Yeah, I've read the health warnings on those cigarette packs and I know about all that health research, but my brother smokes, and he says he's never been sick a day in his life, so I know smoking can't really hurt you.'

End Citation

Overruling general knowledge and argumentation via specific anecdotal argument.

Yes, I know cigarettes supposedly according to medical science cause lung and other cancers, but both my Grandpa's smoked like fireplaces and each lived to 90 years old plus and so I smoke everyday.

Brief On Matthew 7: 21-23: Theology Always Matters

Vancouver

Brief On Matthew 7: 21-23: Theology Always Matters

Preface

December 12 2015 article revised for an entry on academia.edu, October 9, 2023

Matthew 7:21-23: Introduction

Ellison writes that preaching and even miracles are not necessarily indication of seeking and serving the true God. Ellison (1986: 1129). Works performed need to be considered in light of the character of those that perform them. (1129).

France explains that superficial discipleship is ultimately rejected by God and Christ. France (1985: 148). It is not indicated as necessarily insincere discipleship, but it does not meet the divine standards. (148).

Good works do not qualify a disciple that does not meet God and Christ's criteria for entrance into the Kingdom of God. The New Testament teaches that those in Jesus Christ are saved, justified, sanctified through the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, being applied to them through regeneration (John 3, in particular Titus 3, 1 Peter 1).

Regeneration

3824. paliggenesia: Bible Hub παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Cited

'Strong's Concordance 

paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal 

Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: paliggenesia

Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)

Definition: regeneration, renewal 

Usage: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.'

'Titus 3:5 

N-GFS GRK: διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως 

NAS: by the washing of regeneration and renewing 

KJV: the washing of regeneration, and INT: through [the] washing of regeneration and renewing'

Matthew 7: 21-23: Lord, Lord

English Standard Version (ESV)

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ 

New American Standard Version (NASB)

21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22 Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

This passage from Matthew 7 was preached on by the pastor at church in 2015:

He opined that the persons under judgement knew God, but God did not know them. They had accepted Christ, but God and Christ did not have Lordship over them. Those under judgement were relying on works righteousness as opposed to trusting in God and Christ as Lord and Saviour. The pastor then stated that the theology of the persons under judgement was not a key issue as in they had proper theology because they knew of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ.

However, I reason that theology is always in a sense a key issue. Theology always matters.

The judged persons had a knowledge of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ; enough that they could in this supernatural realm of judgement described, recognize Jesus Christ as Lord, which is technically correct. They called him Lord, but Jesus Christ denied he was their Lord.

These false disciples appeal to works righteousness.

The pastor correctly pointed out that in the judging presence of God any kind of works righteousness approach by humanity to God is error. But, I would add that is it also clearly theologically in error.

Romans 1-9, describes the universal sinfulness of humankind, by nature and choice and that only the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for sin, applied to believers as justification (righteousness) will save any one for the Kingdom of God.

Galatians (2) states that man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ.

In other words, faith in his atoning and resurrection work applied to persons in Christ.

Ephesians 1-2

New American Standard Bible

Ephesians 1 explains that those in Christ are chosen by God; therefore God knows who he has chosen.

4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [d]Him. In love

5 [e]He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the [f]kind intention of His will,

6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 2: 1-10

Ephesians 2 explains that those in Christ are saved by grace through faith unto good works, and not by works or works righteousness.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [ag]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

December 6, 2015: Prior to attending 007 film with several video outages
and the end of the film being without audio (wind storm).
Good public relations from Cineplex Odeon  providing two free movie tickets.

----

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering. 

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company. 

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

More On Accident Fallacy

Scotland From The Roadside: Edinburgh Castle

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.  

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

I have been pondering on, as in examples, Accident Fallacy.

This is definitely challenging philosophical material with plenty of revision, but when thought out, it once again demonstrates how philosophy (philosophy of religion, theology) has practical aspects.

I recently wrote 'Accident Fallacy' on this site and have further thoughts.

'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (7).

From the qualified statement (limited statement my add) to the unqualified (unlimited statement, my add). (7).

The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).

Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).

'If it is always permissible to kill in war (qualified and limited statement), then it is always permissible to kill' (unqualified and unlimited statement). (7).

However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.

A controversial example and topic (not a primary agenda for this post, it was just the best one that came to mind) I have blogged on would be for Accident Fallacy:

If some women prefer large age gaps in marriage (qualified and limited statement), then it is always permissible for there to be large age gaps in marriage (unqualified and unlimited statement).

A major needed qualification is for example:

Most women do not prefer large age gaps in marriage.

This would alter a conclusion to qualified and limited.

Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is

'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).

From the unqualified statement to the statement qualified. (7).

Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7).

Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).

He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless (unqualified and unlimited statement) then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (qualified and limited statement) (7).

I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.

Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33).

Almost every generalization could be rejected because of a possible accidental case it does not cover. 

But to always maintain this is the fallacy of accident. (33).

The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33). General rules with a few exceptions.

However..

Women do not prefer large age gaps in marriage (unqualified and unlimited statement), therefore some women should not prefer large age gaps in marriage (qualified and limited statement).

Is also accident fallacy (alleged as Blackburn notes).

The exception should not be the general rule.

The rule should not rule out the exception.

Accident Continued

Reality Pod: Reminds me of Pink Panther films.

Business Insider & The Bible

The video presents a somewhat negative view of Scripture from Business Insider.

However, I was aware of these and other Bible difficulties within my first seven years of Canadian Christian academia and from my own research.

This was before I worked on secular research theses only degrees in England and Wales, for twelve years. Ending with a Doctorate.

Business Insider admits there are related scholarly debates.

In other words, this is not really new news.

More so this type of information works against a fundamentalist dictation theory of Scripture and that God maintains Scripture within a dictation theory model.

But one could observe I did not hold to dictation theory, years ago on my sites.

However, the type of information does not work against a view of the Scripture, the original autographs, as inspired by God and God the Holy Spirit through writers associated with Christ, that were Apostles and Disciples and associated scribes, written without theological error and with inerrancy.

God did not place a supernatural force field of protection around the original Biblical autographs.

God did not place a supernatural force field of protection around copies of the Scripture to maintain accuracy.

Rather the Scripture has been maintained through ancient and modern scholarship with the use of thousands of manuscripts in whole and part, critical thinking and reasoning with God's guidance.

God's has a sovereign and providential role in this theologically.

And God is the first cause in all things, philosophically. He wills and sanctions all things.

I could add to the type of points made in the video that there are various versions of texts in the New Testament Greek and various English Bible versions (for example), but with minor differences. However central, orthodox theology and the Gospel remains consistent in message.

Facebook

Satire And Theology October 31, 2006

Cited and edited from my second blog

The divine inspiration of Scripture was noted as important.

The New Testament is not full of mythological stories of clearly fictional characters, but actual people that existed. The same group of people discussed within the New Testament, is also the group that produced the Scripture. Therefore, the New Testament is historically grounded on eyewitness testimony, and associates of eyewitnesses.

Since every manuscript contains scribal errors, we can conclude the copies are not equal to the original inspired letters. This does not mean that we have to abandon the Biblical idea of inspired Scripture. I firmly hold to the concept of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God for teaching, and training. I think we can deduce that scribal errors do not equate with theological errors, and therefore scribal errors do not eradicate or change the New Testament’s essential doctrines.

There are enough New Testament documents extant that scholars would know if certain schools of manuscripts contained serious differences in theology from other schools. This is why as Christians we do not need to take seriously the claims of critics that state that lost or hidden New Testament era documents from the group of eyewitnesses contradict the ones found in the New Testament.

The manuscript evidence supports the fact that there are scribal errors in the documents, but does not support the idea of major theological differences between different groups of manuscripts.

My theory of inspiration would include the idea that God inspired the original New Testament documents written by those within the group of Christ and the Apostles.

Since the documents would eventually physically disintegrate, God would have to use supernatural means to maintain the original documents. The idea of God using some kind of supernatural force field to maintain the documents as good as new does not seem in line with how God works in our world over a long period, and so it is not surprising that God allowed the originals to be destroyed or lost, and instead maintained his Scripture through copying.

The copying mistakes did not affect any major doctrine, but we do have related issues like with the ending of Mark. Mark 16: 9-20 does not appear in Codex Vaticanus (B),or Codex Sinaiticus (Sin), the two oldest groups of manuscripts. Marlowe (2006: 1).

The manuscripts have Mark ending at 16: 8. However, 16: 9-20 does appear in Codex Alexandrinus (A), which is a slightly newer manuscript. Miller (2005: 1).

It is possible a scribe or scribes added 16: 9-20, which became part the majority of New Testament texts, but it does not change the essential message of the Gospel or New Testament. We have copies from the two older groups of manuscripts which allow scholars to speculate that it is possible that Mark 16: 9-20 was not written by Mark, but written by a scribe at a later date.

God has therefore not allowed a corruption of New Testament theology at its core even if he did allow an uninspired scribe to write 16: 9-20 and allowed it to become part of the majority text.

It is also possible that Mark died and God inspired an associate who had known Mark to complete the book which appears in the majority text. This view held to by my Mark Biblical Studies professor, at Seminary, for example.

My essential Christian theology is not changed whether or not Mark ends at 16: 8 or 16: 9-20. If Mark died and the book ended at 16: 8, I do not see any need to place demands upon the Markan text and state that it had to have contained an actual resurrection appearance. The ending of the book does make it clear that Christ was no longer in the tomb and was resurrected. The tomb was empty, and a man, likely of supernatural origin in 16: 6-7 made it clear that Christ had risen.

My hope is that a scribe or scribes did not think that the lack of a resurrection appearance and an abrupt ending meant that another ending had to be created.

My New American Standard Bible has two different additional endings after 16: 8. However, if endings were added by scribes, God has still provided the Church with evidence of this from Codex Vaticanus (B),and Codex Sinaiticus (Sin). The Church could therefore take anything stated in these verses as less than Biblically authoritative, but these verses do not influence major Christian doctrines.

I therefore can view our present New Testament as an essentially accurate copy of the original inspired word of God.

Inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs can be reasonably held to theologically; as can the view God has accurately maintained his Scripture.

But admittedly, this a moderate conservative position and not a fundamentalist one, but may evidence lead and not pre-set assumptions.

Marlowe, Michael D. (2006) ‘Mark 16: 9-20’, Bible-Researcher.com, Ohio. http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Miller, Dave (2005) ‘Is Mark 16: 9-20 Inspired?’, Apologetics Press.org, Montgomery, Alabama. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

Amphiboly

Travel+Leisure: Facebook

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Examples from Pirie

I met the ambassador riding his horse. He was snorting and steaming, so I gave him a lump of sugar.' (38)

'FOR SALE: Car by elderly lady with new body and spare tyre. (38)

Note

I now just realize this is how 'tyre' is spelled in British English. I wrote my MPhil and PhD theses with British English, but 'tyre' is still new to me.

(Canadian and American English is 'tire')

Amphiboly is the fallacy of ambiguous construction. (37)

The fallacy occurs often when one fails to consider alternate readings. (38)

This could be due to mistakes in punctuation and grammar.

He states that astrology makes good use of amphiboly as do fortune tellers and a prophet to 'hedge his bets' (38) and 'have it both ways. (38)

This would of course be a false prophet. A true prophet, receiving actual information from God would do no such thing and to hedge bets would risk death in error. Deuteronomy 13 and 18 both stating a false prophet within the Old Testament, Mosaic Law should be put to death.

In the New Testament context a false prophet is to be exposed as such by the Church. This minus the Mosaic Law. 2 Peter (false prophets and false teachers) and Jude (false teachers) are two notable New Testament books to expose false religionists. Jesus also mentioned false Christs and false prophets in Matthew 24.

I am not implying or indicating that all prophets use amphiboly, although to Pirie's credit, he points out a tool that can be used by false religionists.

'The Elements' text is useful considering vagueness and ambiguity in writing arguments.

Vagueness described as a term's lack of precision (176) and ambiguity allows for various possible meanings, each which may be precise. (176).

In Cambridge, Amphiboly is called '(double arrangement)' as traditional fallacy from Aristotle's list. (376). It is the use of 'syntactically ambiguous sentences.' (376).

trekearth

Affirming The Consequent Fallacy

From Google+ Eastern or Southern Europe?

Affirming The Consequent Fallacy

Originally published 2015-11-11. Revised with additions on 2023-11-17, for a posting on academia.edu.

Preface

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Blackburn explains 'Any proposition of the form 'if p then q'. The condition hypothesized, p, is called the antecedent of the conditional, and q the consequent'. Blackburn (1996: 73).

According to Blackburn conditional equates to consequent.

Affirming The Consequent Fallacy

Pirie writes affirming the consequent fallacy is natural for those that confuse 'the order of horses and carts'. Pirie (2006)(2015: 35).

His example

'When cats are bitten by rabid hedgehogs they die. Here is a dead cat, so obviously, there is a rabid hedgehog about'. (35).

The author explains that there are other overlooked reasons for the death of the cat such as being hit by a vehicle or electrocuted. The death of the cat from a rabid hedgehog cannot be reasonably deduced as fact. (35).

It is proper to affirm the antecedent (p from Blackburn) to prove (q) the consequent, but not vice-versa. (35).

So, using his example, when cats are bitten by a rabid hedgehog they die (or when cats are infected by rabies, my add) (p), but the (q) cannot be affirmed to prove (p).

There are many possible reasons for a deceased feline.

Interestingly, Pirie notes that this fallacy is used in the legal system, the courts, as the basis for circumstantial evidence.

For example, based on his examples.

If John wanted to kill his wife Joan, he would have taken out an extra life insurance on Joan.

John did take out extra life insurance on Joan.

Or,

If John had wanted to poison Joan to death, he would have bought poison.

John did buy poison.

These both have alternate explanations (37) but when these mount up it becomes easier for a court to find someone guilty of a crime. (37).

Pirie writes that this fallacy under review, is used to impute motives to a person. (37). This could be committed in a legal and court context, or like to find guilt with someone.

Perhaps in truth, perhaps in error.

Logically fallacious: Affirming the Consequent 

Cited

'Description: An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result. 

Logical Form: If P then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Example #1: If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend. I have more money to spend. Therefore, taxes must have been lowered. 

Explanation: I could have had more money to spend simply because I gave up crack-cocaine, prostitute solicitation, and baby-seal-clubbing expeditions.'

'References: Jevons, W. S. (1872). Elementary lessons in logic: deductive and inductive : with copious questions and examples, and a vocabulary of logical terms. Macmillan.'

(Quite the examples from the website...)

Critical thinker academy: Affirming the Consequent

Cited

'“Affirming the Consequent” is the name of an invalid conditional argument form. You can think of it as the invalid version of modus ponens.

Below is modus ponens, which is valid:

1. If A then B

2. A

Therefore, B

Now, below is the invalid form that you get when you try to infer the antecedent by affirming the consequent:

1. If A then B

2. B

Therefore, A

No matter what claims you substitute for A and B, any argument that has the form of I will be valid, and any argument that AFFIRMS THE CONSEQUENT will be INVALID.

Remember, what it means to say that an argument is invalid is that IF the premises are all true, the conclusion could still be false. In other words, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Here’s an example:

1. If I have the flu then I’ll have a fever.

2. I have a fever.

Therefore, I have the flu.

Here we’re affirming that the consequent is true, and from this, inferring that the antecedent is also true.

But it’s obvious that the conclusion doesn’t have to be true. Lots of different illnesses can give rise to a fever, so from the fact that you’ve got a fever there’s no guarantee that you’ve got the flu.'

(Yes, sadly I had the mumps and a fever as a child)

(Therefore a valid deductive argument can have: 

False premises and a true conclusion (FT) 

False premises and a false conclusion (FF) 

True premises and a true conclusion (TT) 

However... True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments

These also have true conclusions)

---

Cumulative evidences

In PhD thesis research, this fallacy connects to cumulative evidences. One evidence by itself may not lead to a reasonable conclusion, but the more cumulative evidences there are, the more reasonable a conclusion.

From a Biblical perspective, historical Scriptural evidences for the existence of the triune God, Christ and the Gospel can be used, primarily in an attempt to demonstrate Christianity as a reasonable or most reasonable worldview, philosophy, theology.

Secondarily, theistic philosophical (philosophy of religion) evidences such as the idea as necessary for an infinite, eternal, first cause can also be used, although they do not prove the Biblical God, they support the existence of such a creator.

Therefore the secondary cumulative evidences can support the primary cumulative evidences.

But this should not be done affirming the consequent fallacy.

I would NOT state simply...

(A) An infinite, eternal, first cause, is necessary (antecedent)

(b) The eternal Biblical God is documented in scripture (consequent)

A to B exists (yes, both A and B exist)

Therefore 

B to A means B is A (affirming the consequent fallacy)

All is correct until the therefore...

More premises are required in support of B = A.

Deism and other forms of theism are other worldviews and philosophical and theological possibilities. But these propositions and evidences must be reasonably and accurately compared to the propositions, and conclusions, the evidences, for Biblical Christianity. Through my MPhil and PhD theses research, and my website research and articles, I have connected the historical, Scriptural God to philosophy of religion concepts. I do reason that within reasonable, but not absolute certainty, internally and externally the premises in support of Biblical Christianity as a worldview are superior to premises in support of any other worldview. Therefore Biblical Christianity is true. Note, from my archives, only the infinite God has absolute, 100% certainty.

But reviews of, and comparisons to, other worldviews have taken place. Even without admittedly complete objectivity, having been a biblical Christian from a very young age, this was done with the use of reasoning, prayer, considering propositions and then premises and conclusions as evidence.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Accident Fallacy

The fifth of six automotive repair shops since Wednesday and my Toyota is still not repaired. My Dad stated I should take it to Toyota, even as it is likely more expensive.  No money spent as of yet. Toyota may be next...

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Cited

'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (7).

From the qualified statement to the unqualified (statement, my add). (7).

The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).

Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).

'If it is always permissible to kill in war, then it is always permissible to kill'. (7).

I would question even the qualified statement in the example.

It is permissible to kill willing opposing combatants.

It is not permissible to kill unwilling opposing combatants (surrendered or injured).

It is not permissible to kill civilians.

Therefore, it is not always permissible to kill in war.

However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.

Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is

'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).

From the unqualified statement to the statement qualified. (7).

Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7).

Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).

He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (7).

I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.

Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33).

Almost every generalization could be rejected because of a possible accidental case it does not cover.

But to always maintain this is the fallacy of accident. (33).

It is fallacious to treat a general, qualified statement as if it is unqualified. (33). The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33).

General rules with a few exceptions.

Sydney: Google+

Fallacy Of Accent

Maple Ridge (Home of Mr. Bobby Buff)

Blackwell Reference Online

Cited

'Fallacy of Accent

Logic

A fallacy originally noticed by Aristotle, in which an argument proceeds to a conclusion by changing the syllabic accent of a word and hence causing its meaning to be changed. Such an argument is, of course, invalid. It is later expanded to cover cases in which one argues by emphasizing different parts of a sentence hence changing its meaning. It is also called the fallacy of emphasis, and usually occurs in spoken language. “The fallacy of accent is committed whenever a statement is accented in such a way as to change its meaning, and is employed in an argument.” Carney and Scheer, Fundamentals of Logic.'

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Cited

'The fallacy of accent defends for its effectiveness on the fact the meaning of statements can change, depending on the stress put on words. The accenting of words or phrases can give a meaning quite different from that intended, and can add implications which are not part of the literal meaning.' (31).

Example used

'Light your cigarette' (31).

a) Without accent it looks like an invitation. (31).
b) As opposed to lighting a tablecloth or something else. (31).
c) Instead of someone else. (31).
d) Instead of sticking it in your ear. (31).

The author notes that by changing the accent, the meaning can be changed. (31)

'Light your cigarette', reads like an invitation or instruction.

''Light your CIGARETTE', reads as if an instruction to light the cigarette instead of something else.

'Light YOUR cigarette' read like an instruction to light your own cigarette and not another's.

'LIGHT your cigarette' reads as an invitation, instead of sticking it in your ear.

The author states: 'The fallacy lies with the additional implications introduced by emphasis. (32).

For our Blog context, that being theology, philosophy of religion, philosophy and Bible, this following statement from Pirie is relevant and profound:

'Your most widespread use of the fallacy of accent can be to discredit opponents by quoting them with an emphasis they never indented'. (32).

He notes that Richelieu needed six lines by which to hang an honest man. (32).

I reason he is meaning Cardinal Richelieu of France. This would be a good historical example where Christianity was politicized and did not closely follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his disciples, the Apostles and scribes.

The use of accent in a fallacious manner can twist words for the purpose of a lie.

Another example provided:

'Samson was blinded by the king of the Philistines who had promised not to touch him'. (32).

One can promise not to touch you, but pay to have someone else blind you...

One should pay special attention to the educated and elite, whether in a political, corporate, religious or other context when he or she may be using the fallacy of accent to persuade the masses.

But of course the masses can use the fallacy as well.

From a Biblical, Christian perspective this type of fallacious reasoning, this type of twisting of the truth, for the sake of attempting to win an argument, is unethical and morally wrong.

If one cannot win an argument without using fallacy, or more importantly present a good argument, perhaps premises and conclusions need to be reconsidered.

Abusive Analogy

Google+

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

From Pirie

'The fallacy of abusive analogy is a highly specialized version of the ad hominem argument.
Instead of the arguer being insulted directly, an analogy is drawn which is calculated to bring him into scorn or disrepute. The opponent or his behaviour is compared with something which will elicit an unfavourable response toward him from the audience.' (29).

Pirie provides the example:

'If science admits no certainties, then a scientist has no more certain knowledge of the universe than does a Hottentot running through the bush.' (29).

'(This is true, but is intended as abuse so that the hearer will be more sympathetic to the possibility of certain knowledge.) (29).'

In other words, science using inductive reasoning, testing and empirical research may not claim certainty, at least in some cases, but there is still considerable, significant knowledge that has been obtained through the scientific method.

A lack of certainty with inductive scientific reasoning, does not for example, by default make certain deductive philosophical and theological reasoning certain.

An analogy is not effective here as inductive and deductive reasoning succeeds or fails based on the soundness of premises and conclusions presented.

Blackburn explains that arguing by analogy is stating that since things are alike in some ways they will 'probably' (14) be alike in others. (14).

The use of 'probably' here is key. Often arguing by analogy produces some similarities and some differences rendering the argument unsound.

If such an argument is used comparing only the things certainly alike it is reasonable.

However, Blackburn cites Wittgenstein, noting it can be irresponsible to generalize one case. (14).

In other words, generalizing by argument of analogy can be irresponsible.

It can also be abusive analogy.

O'Conell Bridge, Dublin: trekearth

Fleet Street, London: trekearth

Ad Hominem/Against the Man

Facebook and Travel+Leisure: Possibly Turkey

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122).

So, therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. A fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning; as well it is the use of an invalid structure of argument.

But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious.

The argument is not treated by its merit. (122).

Blackburn explains that ad hominem is an attempt to argue against a person via personal attack, it is less commonly used by praising a person, or it may or may not be used by forceful attacks against a person's position but they do not advance matters intellectually against a person's beliefs and views. Blackburn (1996: 24).

Douglas Walton writes that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Being Reasonable In An Argument

Giethorn, Holland/Netherlands: Facebook & Travel+Leisure

Vancouver

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The author explains that a person can win an argument by being offensive (as in bad-mannered) as long as the force of the reasoning cannot be withstood by the opponent. Pirie (2006)(2015: 26).

That being stated the author, wisely in my view, points out that it is easier to win an argument 'if your demeanour is pleasant', (26).

Pirie then uses the good example of salesmen convincing people to purchase goods. (26).

A skilled arguer will often allow his opponent 'a let-out, a graceful retreat'. (26). This allows one to concede an argument without losing face. (26). I very strongly hold to the idea of humbly letting an opponent in an argument 'save face'. There are several possible reasons to do this, but one is to love one's neighbour as self (Matthew 22 and Mark 12), and to love those in Christ (John 15, 1 John) and another is that even as it appears one may be winning an argument, persons are finite and sinful and a very humble attitude in arguing is itself reasonable.

One may have made the better premise (s) and conclusion but is not necessarily completely free from potential intellectual error in that context. Even after the most successful arguments there is always some room for humility and doubt as a finite, sinner.

As well, no argument, thesis or post, for example, is completely exhaustive in presentation.

There is also room within an argument to cease argumentation and take the position of student in order to learn.

Even in the next realm with perfected humanity (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), those in Christ will still be finite.

The author states that in winning an argument it is better to appear reasonable than dogmatic. (26). It is more persuasive to readers and listeners. A warning to those that are philosophically, theologically and religiously fundamentalist (ic). The authors explains that the best way to appear reasonable is to be reasonable. (28). Win the argument he states but in a level and civilized manner. (28).

Arguing On The Internet

Lake Como, Italy-trekearth

Arguing On The Internet

Preface

This article is part of my Pirie, entry by entry, book review, published originally October 10, 2015. Edited with additions for an entry on academia.edu, March 23, 2024.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Arguing On The Internet: Pirie

'In regard to arguing on the internet'. Pirie (2006)(2015: 22). Arguments can take place 'in the comments responses to blogs'. Pirie (22). I will add for 2024, on websites and on social media. Further he states 'Not many people who read blogs bother to go through the comments section, below them', (22). He explains that those who do comment are not likely a typical reader. (22). 'Interested minority' (22) is the what he states in regard to persons that comment. Those who comment may be very opinionated and have their minds made up and what takes place in comments is a form of 'jousting'. (22). As these types of readers are set in their views, the object in writing blog comments is not so much to change the views of others but to score intellectual points. (22).

As I have noted with the rise of Facebook and far more social media options, my Blogger website comments drastically declined over the years, to virtually nil. In fact, my Blogger website posts are previewed on a Facebook Business page, Russell Norman Murray, PhD which would more likely receive any related comments, but the number of comments are few.

Blogger pageviews for both this website and my other related Blogger website, Satire Und Theology. vary from year to year in amount, but according to official Blogger statistics, both websites still receive thousands of pageviews most months. I am fine with the change from basically a blog format to a website format, as I have transitioned from full-time student, part-time employee to full-time, government employee and part-time scholar. I still do the academic work, mostly on the weekends, and listening to messages and reading during the week, but frankly I do not have the time or energy for answering many comments. I need to also be more in-person social than while I was a student.

Pirie opines that in blog comments the 'level of courtesy is much lower than would be expected in face-to-face confrontation'. (22). True enough in many cases and it should be remembered by those claiming a public Christian faith, philosophy and walk that Biblical views on love, truth, morality and ethics would in no way be altered because an interaction was virtual and not actual! Similarity, those of non-Christian worldviews should also seek consistent morality and ethics in both offline and online contexts. The author mentions internet trolls and their ability to hide online and be abusive to online writers. (22). I reason there is too much 'hiding' online in many contexts, rather than dialogue, but being an internet troll is cowardly and distasteful, especially when ad hominem, against the person, attacks are used. I do realize that there is online fear in other contexts, such as women being defensive in protecting their identity and motives. 

I reason that many people hold to views too emotionally and subjectively, as opposed to seeking a more rational, objective approach to propositions/statements, and as well premises that lead to conclusions. I trust that rationally and objectively, everything that I have is from the Lord, and that everything I do not have is from the Lord. I therefore can read and listen to views I do not agree with rationally and objectively, not trusting primarily in myself as the source of truth, but in the Lord as the source of the truth. This gives me peace whether I agree or disagree with the views of others. The following verse from the NASB (and an interesting bonus, technical explanation) is at the core of my worldview.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) John 14: 6 

6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. 

Logos.com 

Cited 

'Did you ever notice this little asterisk in your New American Standard Bible? 

This is what the NASB says it’s doing: “A star (*) are [sic] used to mark verbs that are historical presents in the Greek which have been translated with an English past tense in order to conform to modern usage.” For example, instead of, “They go into Galilee,” which is a literal translation of the Greek, the NASB will have, “They went* into Galilee,” which is more natural in contemporary English.'

'This article was originally published in the January/February 2021 issue of Bible Study Magazine. Slight adjustments, such as title and subheadings, may be the addition of an editor.'

End citation

Pirie advises blog writers to keep blog comments short and factual. (22). Short comments are not difficult to present as the Blogger format is meant to limit the length. Being factual should be absolutely, positively essential for academic websites such as mine. Revising material where and when necessary. Publicly note it where and when necessary. The author also claims response should be 'immediate'. (23). Deal with an issue while relevant and I agree. Again, seeking to be rational and objective, in my case prayerfully, through grace through faith (notably Ephesians 1-2).

Ad hominem: Blackburn

Blackburn writes that ad hominem is an attempt to argue against a person by personal attack, less commonly by praising a person, or it may or may not be forceful attacks against a person's position but they do not advance matters intellectually against a person's beliefs and views. Blackburn (1996: 24).

Ad hominem: Walton

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). In other words, it is an informal fallacy, to use name-calling and abusive actions to attempt to win an argument. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Ad hominem: Pirie

Ad Hominem/Against the Man 

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122). The argument is not treated by its merit. (122). Therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. An informal fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning. The invalid structure of argument is a formal fallacy. But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious. 

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial 

With this fallacy 'the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true of false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to.' (124). 

Cited

'You can't accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove out the money lenders from the temple.' (124). Pirie explains that the Christian is invited to agree because of Christian convictions. (124). I agree that this would be fallacious argumentation. Jesus Christ in the biblical context is removing the business of moneychanging and related banking from the temple. This should not be expanded to Christian theology and philosophy where all moneychanging, money lending and banking is therefore considered, sinful, immoral and unethical. In other words, banking outside of the temple, or in our modern context, the Christian Church, is not necessarily sinful, immoral and unethical. Interestingly, the British author also documents the example of nominal Christians that in reality do not follow biblical views in their personal lives. The nominal Christian could then be 'forced into a reluctant and resentful acquiescence you could never have gained otherwise.' (125). Problematically, many nominal Christians are biblically illiterate to the point where he/she may very well be unaware whether Jesus Christ's actions of removing moneychanging and banking from the temple, in the New Testament Gospels, would therefore require a modern-day Christian theology and philosophy that is anti-lending and anti-banking. Context is extremely important within Biblical Studies. 

Tu quoque 

A type of ad hominem. Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201). This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202). As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202). 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Arguments and Logical Fallacies

Arguments and Logical Fallacies

Preface

Updated for a posting on academia.edu, 20240309. This was the first review of the Pirie text.

Photo was of recent books purchased. The Kant book was a PhD reference.

---

Philosopher Madsen Pirie explains that 'sound reasoning is the basis of winning at argument. Logical fallacies undermine arguments'. Pirie (2006)(2015: xii). He writes that any trick of logic or language which allows a statement or claim to be passed off as something it is not, actually, has the 'admission' card to the enclosure known as fallacies. (xii).

In describing 1. What is an argument

It is stated that an argument begins with a disagreement. (1). A first person puts forward a point or view or opinion and this is contrasted by a point, view or opinion differing.These views are not compatible, in other words the two views cannot simultaneously be held to.

An argument supports one side and position and undermines the other side and position. (1).

This is a loose term for an argument, states the author, when people assert opposing positions; the term argument is more correctly applied with supporting material. (2).

Point, view and opinion could also be called a premise (s) leading to a conclusion, notably from my MPhil and PhD questionnaire work. 

(A proposition/statement would be a singular point/claim. Not technically an argument)

The Elements texts states that an argument is a set of claims, one of which is supported by the others.

A claim or a set of claims support a claim. Elements (1997: 5).

The conclusion is supported by the premise (s). My add.

A conclusion is a claim meant to be supported by the claims or reasons provided in the argument.
A premise is a claim put forward to support a conclusion. (5).

Elements states 

Argument=conclusion+premises, (5)

Or again from my United Kingdom theses work, it could be stated

Argument=premise (s)+conclusion

One infers or makes an inference each time a conclusion is drawn from a premise or premises. (6).

An argument can fail if it has a false premise (s) or has premise (s) that is irrelevant or provide inadequate support for a conclusion. (7). But the authors point out that a bad argument is still an argument. (7).

In other words a bad argument is not sound or true.

Further from Pirie: A valid argument can have a false premise. (69). As long as the premise (s) are not true and the conclusion false, it is logically possible to have a valid argument. Premise-Conclusion TT, FF, FT, TF combinations. A true premise (s) and false conclusion (TF) from these combinations, cannot possibly be logically valid. The other combinations are logically valid. However, as Pire recognizes, a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). I am not placing a limit on the number of premises within every type of argument. The conclusion would also be true.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

VR Zone/Facebook