PhD: Twitter quote 101

Photo: You Tube October 8 2018

PhD: Twitter quote 101 

Edited from my PhD

Twitter version I

Erickson also reasons, interestingly, that God cannot undo the past (Erickson (1994: 277), although he may take away the effects and memory of it. Erickson (1994: 277). 

Twitter version II

God cannot logically violate his own nature, Erickson (1994: 277), Thiessen (1956: 126), Weber (1955)(1981: 440), or fail to live up to a promise. Erickson (1994: 277). 

From my PhD

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Twitter version III

The implication being that God could hypothetically change all the results of a past occurrence, but could not logically make the past occurrence to have not occurred, even if only he had any ultimate knowledge of it. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

archive search: omnipotence

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Cherry picking fallacy

Cherry picking fallacy

Photo: Visit Manchester, Manchester Cathedral

Updated for an article on academia.edu: February 26, 2023

Preface

While living in Manchester, I did visit the Cathedral which was architecturally fairly interesting. I was not as impressed by the very liberal theology pamphlets that were on offer. 

The first place I lived in within Greater Manchester, was Crumpsall, and I used to do a very interesting walk from Crumpsall to well past this Cathedral in central Manchester.

One time a kind younger man in Crumpsall walked by me on the street and stated (paraphrased): 'Watch your back here, this is like the Bronx!' Interestingly, I visited the Bronx three years later.

Crumpsall seemed to be a more dangerous place than the Bronx, in my humble opinion, but I was (am) no expert.

Cherry picking fallacy (informal fallacy) 

Informal fallacies were reviewed in the Pirie text. This opposed to formal fallacies that are formal logic errors, that have been reviewed in Langer.

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

Facebook Discussion

Citing Dean Hintz 

I do find it somewhat puzzling that so many people who used to follow the advice of authoritative agencies such as these now are inclined to dismiss them out of hand simply based on popular social media feeds.

My Facebook reply 

Cherry picking, may be taking place in some cases. 

Logically fallacious 

Cited

Cherry Picking (also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness) Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

One-sided argument 

Thursday, June 29, 2017 A one-sided argument

I have reviewed a one-sided argument, previously, edited.

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

Many decisions persons may weigh in have advantages and disadvantages. The fallacy of one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of a case is taken into consideration. (158). 

Pros and cons should be evaluated in order to make judgements based on the balance. (158-159). This fallacy can err on only counting the advantages or disadvantages in regard to an issue. Relevant material is omitted from arguments in order to achieve a one-sided argument. (159). 

Providing two or more sides on an argument and supporting theology and philosophy with methodology was very much emphasized to me within my British academic studies at the University of Wales. Besides this approach providing more potential objectivity, at least, in the evaluation if arguments; it also disciplines the academic mind to reasonably consider alternative views. This is an approach which in theory should make an academic less biased and partisan.

Omitting the benefit

Tuesday, June 27, 2017 That idea would go over like an atomic bomb 

A one-sided argument is quite similar to omitting the benefit in the Pirie text. 

Cited 

When evaluating the benefits of an activity, both the good and bad consequence, should be considered. (157). If each may exist. A surprisingly (157) common fallacy consists of omitting the benefits produced by an activity or proposal and counting only the adverse consequences. (157).

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

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. 

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Friendly Zoom debate & discussion

From Facebook 

I just finished hosting my sometimes, Saturday night (possibly Sunday night) open topic Zoom meeting 'World of Domes' (host is an exception). Tonight we mainly discussed the pandemic and vaccines. 

I appreciate Howard James Bartel for his libertarian stance and Dean Hintz for his scientific knowledge, and others. I am thankful we debated as friends. 

--- 

Blogger

I will add in this Blogger context, from last evening, Sir Robin (not on Facebook) was also appreciated for his political science and other contributions. 

It was four of us on extended at the end, but other friends contributed earlier as well.

PhD: Twitter quote 100

PhD: Twitter quote 100

Photo: AR_200417_GortonMons-1 Manchester Evening News, Gorton Monastery

Preface

I think I have viewed Gorton Monastery while in a motor vehicle, but I do not believe it was near my walking routes, although looking at a map, it was close.

In my Reformed theology, God's infinite attributes work within the logically possible. For examples, God cannot choose to cease to exist (as logically necessary, and the first and primary cause), make the finite, infinite, or create another infinite, omnipotent God, equal to self.

God the Son, as infinite, within the Trinity, did (does) take a finite, human nature in the incarnation. Correctly, and classically, the natures do not mix. Jesus Christ is both finite man and infinite God.

PhD: Twitter quote 100

Edited from PhD thesis

PhD Full Version PDF in article 

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Twitter version I

Thiessen defines omnipotence as meaning the creator is able to accomplish whatever he wills, as long as it does not oppose his nature. Thiessen (1956: 126). 

Twitter version II

Omnipotence: Herman Bavinck reasons God does whatever pleases God. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 233 Volume 2). 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

archive search: omnipotence