Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Reviews *I4 271before of creation, in that he does not argue for either a pure duration or timelessness in God before creation.In his response to Padgett, Wolterstorff contends that their positions are quite similar, with some clarifications concerning the idea of Gods pure duration and creations time (233-236).In the end, Wolterstorff s position is quite minimalist: God has a history of acting, responding and also acquiring knowledge.For those wishing to get a quick taste of some of the basic positions concerning God and time this is a fine place to start.The level of argument is accessible yet remains sophisticated.Since readers will no doubt desire more detailed expositions of the respected authors, the selected bibliography is satisfactory, notably for analytical philosophy of religion, though it misses some of the fine historical discussions available.This dialogue is quality reading for undergraduate courses in philosophy of religion or the doctrine of God.To examine the issue of God and time from a more authentically Christian perspective, however, the discussion would have to include the central doctrines of the trinity and incarnation.The doctrine of the incarnation is mentioned anecdotally a few times, and the trinity sparingly.It would seem to me that the doctrine of the trinity would be an excellent starting point, or the starting point, to speak of the fullness of Gods being -which itself is not given the place it deserves, despite being one of the five important issues mentioned by Ganssle in the introduction.These two central doctrines would give the discussion not only more problems but more resources for thinking through this important issue in Christian theology and philosophy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".