(3) A good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely. (2) There are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. According to Mackie, the problem may be located within these three statements: (1) A good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can. Mavrodes, page 98, denies the charge, pointing out that nobody has ever succeeded in making the contradiction plain. Mackie * asserts, but does not explicit-ly prove, that there does exist such a logical contradiction. Some have affirmed, others denied, that there is a logical contradiction derivable from assumptions plausibly attributed to classical theism. Formalization is not sufficient for solution or dis-solution of the problem, but is helpful in isolating and stating contentious assumptions, and thereby in providing a founda-tion for possible solutions. We set out here a formalization of the argument from evil, i.e., a first-order deduction of a first-order inconsistency from certain premisses alleged to be essential to theism or neces-sary truths.

The constructs of the observer effect, solipsism, social capital, and locus of control inform the discussion. Comparisons between research methods and field-level inspection are explored through information research and summary review. This conceptual quantitative-qualitative amalgam includes reconciling their philosophical roots with positivism, interpretivism, and constructivism. A combination of qualitative and quantitative paradigms is termed mixed-methods or mixed methodology. Practical field-level inspections lack formal research structure however, envisioning inspections from a theoretical perspective allows appreciation for both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The act of observation shapes our interpretations of reality and how information is processed into knowledge. Gathering information through observation has obvious similarities with data collection in formal research. An awareness of the different avenues of inquiry and factors influencing inquiry may assist with conceptual and practical approaches to observation and inspection. The term ‘observer’ is used contextually in this paper both as the act of receiving information from the external world and as a practitioner assessing phenomena. At a minimum, the discussion will encourage introspection. Arming the observer with broader knowledge can bolster approaches to inspection. The reader is encouraged to consider factors related to the interchanges of an observer, the phenomena that are observed, and the combination of the observer and the observed.

The objective is to offer a brief insight into the inspection process through the prisms of science, philosophy, and psychology but not to advocate for a specific approach. If you keep taking out one grain from the heap until you have only one grain left then you are left with just one of the following two conclusions: Either a heap can be be composed of a single grain of sand or there is no such thing as a heap…I know mind blowing.This summary review examines the inspection process in relation to fundamental research paradigms and factors influencing those paradigms. This paradox arises from vague predicates, it is quite simple and it goes thus suppose you have a heap of sand compose of one million individual grain and you take out one grain from the heap which means you still have a heap of sand and the logic is true for any heap of sand. So this is the last paradox and it is also known as the paradox of the heap. If it was true then the statement would be false which again will make it true which would be false. Now if this statement is false then of course it would be true. This is an easier way to phrase it and it goes thus “ This statement is false”. It is known as the liars paradox and can be phrased in many ways. This paradox is named after the Cretan philosopher Epimenides of Knossos who is credited with the original statement.

Omnipotence and omnipresence paradox