Mad Fool,

Regarding your initial post and the matter of God/s and omnipotence, I can only comment in refererence to my understanding of how the omnipotence of the Christian God is generally conceptualised today in mainstream trinitarian theology, still I hope you might find the essence of this conceptualisation is of some possible interest/help if I briefly outline it ? So here it is...

With respect to the Christian God, the attribute of "omnipotence" is not intended to be viewed in its (typical/standard) QUANTITATIVE sense. Let me explain...

Christians refer to their God as "God the Father Almighty" ( Lat: patrem omnipotentum) and it is very important here to understand that the conception "Almighty" receives its light from the conception "Father" and not vice versa. That is, it is an act of divine omnipotence through which God makes Himself known to humanity as "Father"; or, in other words, the revelation to humanity of God as Father in His Son Jesus Christ ( through the Holy Spirit) IS the act by which we come to know what it means to say that God is "omnipotent ( all-powerful). That is, to know the Father is to know Jesus Christ ( the Son) - and more specifically, the Jesus Christ who DIED then ROSE again ( was resurrected on the third day) and then ascended ( vertically) to the right hand of the Father in the kingdom of heaven.

The point is that to know God the Father is to believe ( through the complementary and mutually re-enforcing supernatural knowledge of faith AND the finite knowledge that is provided by our human reason) that He alone is the one who CIRCUMSCRIBES life and death; that He alone is the one who has power over life and death, and it is in THIS sense that He is spoken of as "omnipotent". Thus, when Christians refer to the omnipotence of God as something that CIRCUMSCRIBES life and death (I.e. ALL THINGS) the predicate "omnipotent" has a QUALITATIVE connotation that is radically distinct from the the typical QUANTITATIVE understanding of the term.

When the term omnipotent is used in its standard, quantitative sense, it generates questions such as:

"If God can do everything (a quantitative descriptor of omnipotence), can he create a rock so big ( again, a quantitative qualifier) that He cannot lift it ?"

This kind of question - like your question regarding the outcome of a violent life and death struggle between two omnipotent hypothetical gods, X and Y - is ill-guided, not only because it assumes a QUANTITATIVE framework for the answer, but because it assumes that omnipotence if first and foremost about FORCE rather than POWER ( and I do not, of course, not mean Power as it is quantitatively/ mathematically defined in classical mechanics as the quotient of Force and Time).

For Christians, God the Father is omnipotent in the precise sense that it is He and He alone who exercises the perogative over the MOST POWERFUL of ALL THINGS known to man; that which man fears most of all, and that from which none can escape. DEATH.

Regards

John

Chany,

I agree with what you say about the Kalam argument and the "cutting edge of science", it is noteworthy, however, that in a sense, the history of 20th century cosmology can be seen as one failed attempt after another to avoid the absolute beginning of the universe predicted by the standard "Big Bang" model. That prediction is consistent with the Kalam argument and has now Stodden firm for nearly 100 years throughout a period of enormous change and tremendous advances in observational astronomy and creative theoretical work in astrophysics (?)

You are right that the original Kalam cosmological argument refers only the space-time universe that we observe, that particular universe we human beings inhabit that is now believed by the majority of mainstream scientists to have come into being 14 billion or so years ago with the "Big Bang", etc. Regardless of what may exist beyond it, and regardless of any unanswered metaphysical questions about the true nature of absolute/ ultimate reality, our own universe is , in itself, no small, trifling thing , and in endeavouring to account for it the Kalam argument , in my opinion, is already addressing a formidable challenge. In short, limited in scope as it is merely to our universe, Kalam still, in my opinion, provides a vey strong, logically sound and rationally compelling case for the existence of a transcendent, supernatural Creator being. (And) that, for me, is quite enough food for thought just in itself !

Regards

John

Fish fry,

Thank you for your detailed and very interesting response, though I do not want this thread to be diverted too far into the domain of the philosophy of mathematics; therefore let's put aside "Hibert's Hotel" and the notions of potential and actual infinities altogether shall we, because there is, in fact, no stipulation in the Kalam argument that the cause of the origin of the universe must be chronologically prior to that origin. Let's hypothesise instead, like Craig, that (for example) the Creator may be conceived causally, but not temporally prior to the origin of the universe such that the act of causing the universe to exist is SIMULTANEOUSLY with its beginning to exist?

Comments...?

Fishfry,

What you are presuming is that actual infinities really exist. Actual infinity, however is merely an abstract notion , or, if you like, a fiction in the realm of the philosophy of mathematics which proposes that mathematical objects like , say the infinite sequence of negative numbers you refer to above can form a complete totality or "set", I.e. a given object that is a true actual infinity. Actual infinities, though, do not exist, they are not realities. To understand why this is you should google up and read the mathematician David Hibert's famous thought experiment , "Hibert's Hotel".

NB: with regard to why the creator of the universe was (a la the Kalam argument) a PERSoNAL God, I'll explain that for you in detail tomorrow when I have more time. And as for your vexed query re the notion of eternal punishment in Christian theology, please let's try to keep this discussion on track, I.e.as an invitation to present and debate substantive philosophical/scientific objections to the Kalam cosmological argument. St Augustine's position on the question of "eternal punishment" is a totally separate issue, and at present I am not interested in explaining to you. It's something for a separate thread ( or your psychiatrist) Right?

You say, "Why not say if the universe has a cause, that cause must be an effect of an effect of an effect" ? Here you are challenging img premise two ( P2) of the original Kalam argument : "The Universe BEGAN to exist"; you are asking why we should not suppose that the universe NEVER began to exist, rather, there was an infinite number of past cause -and -effect events prior to today? The reason is that an infinite number of things cannot exist. A POTENTIALLY infinite number of things can exist, but not an ACTUALLY infinite number of things. If one begins to argue than an ACTUALLY infinite number of things can exist certain absurdities inevitably result. The best illustration of this is "Hilbert's Hotel", the brainchild of the great German Mathematician David Hibert. Google "Hilbert's Hotel" for yourself, it a very accessible piece of reasoning written in clear and simple English ( even you Beebert will understand it and find the logic irrefutable)If you stil need further explanations/demonstrations re why ACTUAL infinities are fictions that exist only in the domain of mathematical discourse and not actual realities, I will provide them for you.

Secondly, you ask why the universe could not have come into existence as a random phenomenon? Here you are challenging the first premise ( P1) of the traditional Kalam argument , namely : "Whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its beginning" Your objection is easy to rebut because to claim that something can just suddenly, randomly, "pop" into existence "ex nihilo" ,as it were, without any reasonable cause is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you've got the hat, not to mention the magician. But if you deny P1. You are arguing that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But NOBODY - even you - SINCERELY believes that things, say a kangaroo or a Rolls Royce car or a sky-scraper just pop into being without a cause. Right ?

Beebert,

My claim is that the Kalam argument is, to date, very strongly supported by philosophical reasoning and hard experimental, empirical scientific evidence and thus it gives us powerful grounds for believing in the EXISTENCE of a creator God. I did NOT say that the Kalam argument provides a means for us to KNOW anything about the nature of this God as He actually is in Himself. The Kalam argument is the product of human reasoning, it logically suggests that IN OUR CRUDE, VAGUE,LIMITED, AND INADEQUATE HUMAN TERMS we might describe the God ( divine being) who created the universe we inhabit 14 billion years ago as a beginningless, uncaused, atemporal, a -spatial, changeless, non-physical/immaterial, unconditional, enormously powerful, Personal creator.

Insofar as you are asking WHO this God is -what is His true nature as He is in Himself that is an entirely different question; a question the Kalam argument does not seek to answer. All we can ultimately say is that this God -whom the Kalam argument gives us good reason to believe does exist is that with respect to humanity, He is transcendent and "wholly other". For us, He is utterly unknowable, unspeakable, unthinkable and totally incomprehensible; He Himself is forever hidden from our view. If He were not, then He would not be God; or, as Saint Augustine put it -" Si Comprehendis non Deus est" - i.e. if you understand Him , then he is not God. Briefly, there is, to be precise, no divine predicate/affirmation, no divine concept that contains in particular that which the God who created the universe is, there is only the divine subject as such and in Him the fullness of His divine affirmation.

In short, The Kalam argument provides strong evidence for the existence of a divine creator God - God as a "known unknown".

Regards

John

Mad Fool,

In your opening post you claimed that the justice, by definition, requires fairness. Fairness, you said was the principle that "all are equal before the law, similar offences will be treated similarly". Fairness, as a legal principle is grounded in the presumption that all men are created equal. The problem is that al men are not created equal. For example, there is a robust body of research evidence suggesting that psychopaths have, amongst other abnormalities, a deficit of empathy which manifests itself a in callous, cold-hearted, remorseless behavioural traits. This empathetic deficit is believed to be biologically based in the frontal lobe ( prefrontal cortex) of the human brain .Neuroimaging studies of convicted , incarcerated homicidal psychopaths show that there are some broadly common neurobiological structural and functional abnormalities in the prefrontal vortices of these individuals. My point is, that if a person has an organic ( biological) abnormality in the prefrontal cortex of their brain that strips them of any sense of empathy, remorse ,sympathy, or conscience for the commission of a brutal premeditated murder where their victim has been, say, raped, then tortured before being killed, then this is not just "murder one". The killer, because s/he is biologically abnormal is incorrigible, and having no sense of regret or remorse for their action/s is very likely to continue murdering others in the same fashion if they are ever at liberty to do so. What is the point of sentencing such a person to "life" (25-30 years or whatever) in a high-security prison, at the tax-payer's expense, if they incapable of being rehabilitated? Why should the state not execute them in the interest of bettering society by diverting the (considerable) costs of incarcerating such an individual to help provide revenue for improving public health or education, etc?

So, in short, your presumption that the legal principle of fairness is: "Perfect, at least on paper. Not much controversy in it." is, in my opinion false. All human beings are not created equal, they are all biologically different from each other, and in the case of sadistic homocidal psychopaths is a pertinent example wrt your op. Such individuals ( the American serial killer, Ted Bundy,is a good example), if apprehended and convicted, ought, in my opinion, be executed by the state for the reasons I have outlined above. If you disagree, please explain your objections.

Regards

John

I agree with Augustino. Neitzsche is still automatically granted status as one of the modern eras most profound and influential philosophers, but he was, in fact, essentially a [/b][ poet[[/b] not a deep thinker. Re-reading his texts as an older man, it seems clear to me that he lacked the temperamental qualities, in particular, the kind of prudence, dispassionate equanimity, personal self-control and self- discipline that are the hallmarks and sine qua nonof any truly great philosopher. His notoriously intemperate scoldings of Christian morality are a case in point; for me, they bring to mind the violent temper tantrums of a very spoiled and naughty toddler in a supermarket , being "all sound and fury" that signifies nothing. More generally speaking, Neitzsche had, as a prose stylist a penchant for the outrageous, the histrionic, the pretentious and grandiloquent. He was, in common parlance, a self-obsessed, attention-seeking, literary "drama queen" of his era - a man who was, I would argue, highly, emotionally unstable. Given his suddenly descent into fully-blown , frank schizophrenia in 1889, perhaps this affective lability was a symptom of incipient psychosis?

Equally, I believe that Nietzsche's texts bear witness to the anger and frustration of a man who was a desperate seeker who was unable to find what he sought. What he sought was a concept of God that would transcend modern atheism and theism and prevent the advent of a catastrophic nihilism that he correctly predicted would devastate humanity in the two centuries following his announcement of the death of the Christian "Nicht Gott" of his time - a false god whom man had created and held hostage to teleological development progress in human history. A god who was merely a human idol.

Nietzsche was questing for the true living God, but he would never find that God because he would always be too arrogant, wilful, proud and vain to accept what Karl Barth termed the "humiliation" of the Christian Gospel. Barth was referring, in particular,to the Pauline doctrine of election by grace, which held that man could only begin to seek and know God ( who was the one absolute truth) through the freely bestowed divine gift of supernatural faith. The lesson that man not know God through any kind of human knowledge or thought process alone represented the utter humiliation of Enlightenment reason and here, Nietzsche was inherently unteachable.

Regards,

John