A Vicious Regress
Photos: McSween, BC (trekearth)
Introduction
The concept of infinite regression has been discussed in two of my previous articles, but I wanted to deal with the topic primarily in this posting.
In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously.[1] A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem.[2] Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress.[3]
In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items.[4] A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent.[5] From the same volume, Raymond D. Bradley cautions that the mere existence of an infinite series is not the same as infinite regression, and is not philosophically objectionable.[6] His first example is that every natural number (a positive integer, 1,2,3,4, …, or a non-negative integer, 0,1,2,3,4,…) has a successor that is a natural number.[7] Bradley writes that it would not be illogical to state that each free act of consequence is a result of an act of free choice.[8] Bradley thinks that trying to answer infinite regress by bringing in the idea of the theist’s God makes no sense.[9]
As usual, Blackburn offers reasonable and helpful definitions and explanations. I also find Tolhurst’s ideas helpful. I agree with Bradley that an infinite series of numbers is not objectionable or a vicious regress. I do not doubt that we can hypothetically at least, count from 0 or 1 to infinity, but we are dealing with hypothetical numbers, and not actual things. Numbers are members or sets used to describe real things. For example, I could say I have 200 compact discs but it would be the compact discs that are actual things and not the number 200.
Edwards and Free Choice
Bradley mentions that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. Jonathan Edwards deals with this issue in a previous blog article I wrote entitled, Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will. Again, for philosophical clarity, in my view choices are real things, not members or sets like numbers used to describe real things.
Introduction
The concept of infinite regression has been discussed in two of my previous articles, but I wanted to deal with the topic primarily in this posting.
In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously.[1] A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem.[2] Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress.[3]
In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items.[4] A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent.[5] From the same volume, Raymond D. Bradley cautions that the mere existence of an infinite series is not the same as infinite regression, and is not philosophically objectionable.[6] His first example is that every natural number (a positive integer, 1,2,3,4, …, or a non-negative integer, 0,1,2,3,4,…) has a successor that is a natural number.[7] Bradley writes that it would not be illogical to state that each free act of consequence is a result of an act of free choice.[8] Bradley thinks that trying to answer infinite regress by bringing in the idea of the theist’s God makes no sense.[9]
As usual, Blackburn offers reasonable and helpful definitions and explanations. I also find Tolhurst’s ideas helpful. I agree with Bradley that an infinite series of numbers is not objectionable or a vicious regress. I do not doubt that we can hypothetically at least, count from 0 or 1 to infinity, but we are dealing with hypothetical numbers, and not actual things. Numbers are members or sets used to describe real things. For example, I could say I have 200 compact discs but it would be the compact discs that are actual things and not the number 200.
Edwards and Free Choice
Bradley mentions that it is not illogical, and not a vicious regress that each act of free choice is caused by another act of free choice. Jonathan Edwards deals with this issue in a previous blog article I wrote entitled, Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will. Again, for philosophical clarity, in my view choices are real things, not members or sets like numbers used to describe real things.
Thursday, August 31, 2006 Jonathan Edwards and Libertarian Free Will
Edwards thinks that if the human will determines the will and resulting choices, and since every choice must have a cause, then a chain is established where a will and choice is determined by a preceding will and choice. Therefore, if the will determines its own free acts, then every free act of will and choice is determined by a preceding act of will and choice. If a preceding act of will also be of free choice, then that too was self-determined. What Edwards is stating is that in the act of causing a free choice (choice1), the cause of that choice was also made freely (choice2), and the cause of that choice was made freely (choice3) and so on.[10] This would be a vicious regress since it could not be determined what caused human choice initially, because every free choice was caused by a previous free choice. Edwards instead believed that human choices were a result of human nature originally created by God’s will. This human nature had become corrupted and as a result human beings desired and had motivation to do sinful acts only that were not pleasing to God.
A possible way out of this contradiction is to come to the last act of will and choice and state that it is not self-determined, but is rather determined without the use of a will and choice. However, to Edwards, if the initial act of will and choice within the chain is not free, then none of the resulting willed choices can be free.[11] By stating that acts of the will occur without any cause at all is to render human choice random, and if human choices are made randomly it is difficult to establish any ethical value to them.
The following is my speculative chain, influenced by Edward’s idea of how the human will works:
God would freely and by choice give human beings within their nature consciousness and self-awareness, an understanding that they have identity as an individual. There would be in a sense significant, yet limited freedom present within the human consciousness to have an understanding of personal identity, apart from every other individual entity, but this in itself would not be free will or choice, and would not be libertarian free will.[12] Human choice would be caused by the human nature which has consciousness and from that motives and desires. Human nature and consciousness does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. This a reasonable explanation that does not use a vicious regress in trying to explain that every human choice made through libertarian free will is made by a previous choice, and so on. It must be noted that God would be the primary cause of human actions, while human beings (and angelic beings at times) would be the secondary cause of human actions. The concept of human beings as a secondary cause of actions is essential to the idea of compatibilism or soft determinism.
Craig and the First Cause
In The First Cause argument article on this blog I discussed William Lane Craig’s understanding of first cause.
He presents the kalam cosmological argument.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successiveaddition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[13]
Premise 1 deduces that something cannot come from nothing, and that the material universe is not self-caused.[14] Premise 2 therefore states that the universe began and 2.1 deduces that the actual infinite is impossible. An actual infinite cannot exist because if there was an infinite, limitless past, we would never have arrived at the present. Therefore 2.11 is correct, as we cannot have an actual infinite (past), nor can we have an infinite temporal regress as described in 2.12, because that would equal an actual infinite as Craig would put it. 2.13 is therefore reasonable and rather than reality consisting of an infinite past, it consists of a finite past that had a beginning.
With 2.21, Craig notes that one cannot have an actual infinite collection of things by simple addition. This means that a proposed infinite past could not be reached as the formation of an actual infinite would not be reached whether one proceeds to or from infinity.[15] The events described in 2.2 would therefore be finite and not infinite in agreement with 2.23. Premise 3 concludes that the universe has a cause.
If matter and the universe is eternal and therefore unlimited in time, I have not read a convincing explanation that explains how we could arrive at our present state, and indeed have a future. From the first cause argument I would deduce that the universe has a cause and this cause is an infinite, omnipotent being who has always existed beyond time and matter, and created time and matter. I realize that for the finite human mind this type of creator or God cannot be completely comprehended, only apprehended to a point, but it seems that the idea of first cause is not contradictory where as a vicious regress associated with an infinite temporal regress of events is very problematic because neither the present or future would be realized because of an unlimited past.
Joseph Smith and Gods
Joseph Smith the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints writes that there is a plurality of gods. Please note, this is not an attack against the Church, or the people within it, but simply a review of a theological point. I am not interested in attacking in a militant fashion any religious or philosophical group. I am focused on reviewing ideas in order to grow in my understanding and to perhaps help others in an understanding of the Biblical God. I think the topics I discuss are already controversial enough and so there is no need to be militant as well! However, I firmly believe in taking a stand for the truth.
Smith preached on June 16,1844, eleven days before his death, that a plurality of Gods existed and that the head God organized the heavens and the earth.[16] Smith explains that the idea of the God of the Christian Trinity is a strange one.[17] He also states that the Bible supports the idea of the plurality of Gods.[18] The founder of the Latter-day Saints reasons that if Jesus Christ had a Father, that God the Father would have a Father as well. This concept would create an infinite regression of Father Gods.[19] This established a vicious regress within the Latter-day Saints theology concerning God.
The Walter Martin website has some interesting comments on this view. Martin first points out that the Bible in Isaiah, clearly states that there is just one God in Chapters 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 45:5, and 21–22.[20] Martin also mentions that the Lord is called one Lord in Deuteronomy 6:4.[21] Martin further explains that others are called god in the Bible such as Moses to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1, but this is a metaphorical use and is not claiming that Moses is the one and only true God.[22] In Psalm 82 and John 10:34, the judges according to Martin are not intrinsic deity, but became mighty ones like Gods in the eyes of the people. In Psalm 82 and John 10:34 the judges are shown to be sinful men that were in no way to be confused with the God of the Bible in nature.[23] The Bible in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is not only stating that there is only one true God to worship, but that there is only one God in existence period.
I am not going to heavily discuss Trinitarian theology within this article, but I shall state that it is believed within Christianity that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons of one, substance, nature and essence, and therefore are not three eternal Gods, but one eternal God. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is called the exact representation of God’s nature, and in Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is called God. Philip Edgcume Hughes writes that in Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word translated “nature” denotes the very essence of God. Christ is the representation of the Father and shares the same substance as God.[24] So whatever distinctions can be drawn concerning the Father and Son, Biblically it must be concluded that from Hebrews 1:3 they are of the same nature (υποστασεως )[25] and substance. They are not two Gods, but two distinctions within one God, and the Holy Spirit from Acts 5 is also shown to be God sharing in the same nature and substance as the Father and Son. Jesus Christ as both God and man has a human body, but shares the same spiritual substance as the Father and Holy Spirit.
Matthew J. Slick notes that the Latter-day Saints' idea of Gods, which originated with Joseph Smith, teaches an infinite regression of causes.[26] Each God came into existence from a previous God, and this has gone on in an infinite past.[27] There cannot be an infinite regression of Gods because this would require an infinite amount of time which would not allow us to arrive at the present. In contrast the idea of the Christian Trinity is that God has always existed and existed prior to time and therefore God has not lived for an infinite amount of time. God created time, but existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of time and matter. Mary Kochan mentions the same problem with the Latter-day Saints' concept and states that with an infinite regression of Gods there is no way to get to the present and that time had to have a beginning in order for the present to exist.[28]
It appears the Smith’s notion of a plurality of Gods influenced the Latter-day Saints' theology which leads to infinite regression, but it is a contradictory view that features a vicious regress.
[1] Blackburn (1996: 324).[2] Blackburn (1996: 324).[3] Blackburn (1996: 324).[4] Tolhurst (1996: 835).[5] Tolhurst (1996: 835).[6] Bradley (1996: 371).[7] Bradley (1996: 371).[8] Bradley (1996: 371).[9] Bradley (1996: 372).[10] Edwards (1754)(2006: 2.1: 1-2).[11] Edwards (1754)(2006: 2.1: 2).[12] Libertarian free will is the idea that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire.[13] Craig (1991)(2006: 2).[14] Craig (1991)(2006: 12).[15] Craig (1991)(2006: 7).[16] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[17] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[18] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[19] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[20] Martin (2006: 1).[21] Martin (2006: 1).[22] Martin (2006: 1).[23] Martin (2006: 1).[24] Hughes (1990: 43-44).[25] The Greek New Testament (1993: 741).[26] Slick (2006: 1).[27] Slick (2006: 1).[28] Kochan (2002: 1).
THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993), Munster, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, United Bible Societies.
Edwards thinks that if the human will determines the will and resulting choices, and since every choice must have a cause, then a chain is established where a will and choice is determined by a preceding will and choice. Therefore, if the will determines its own free acts, then every free act of will and choice is determined by a preceding act of will and choice. If a preceding act of will also be of free choice, then that too was self-determined. What Edwards is stating is that in the act of causing a free choice (choice1), the cause of that choice was also made freely (choice2), and the cause of that choice was made freely (choice3) and so on.[10] This would be a vicious regress since it could not be determined what caused human choice initially, because every free choice was caused by a previous free choice. Edwards instead believed that human choices were a result of human nature originally created by God’s will. This human nature had become corrupted and as a result human beings desired and had motivation to do sinful acts only that were not pleasing to God.
A possible way out of this contradiction is to come to the last act of will and choice and state that it is not self-determined, but is rather determined without the use of a will and choice. However, to Edwards, if the initial act of will and choice within the chain is not free, then none of the resulting willed choices can be free.[11] By stating that acts of the will occur without any cause at all is to render human choice random, and if human choices are made randomly it is difficult to establish any ethical value to them.
The following is my speculative chain, influenced by Edward’s idea of how the human will works:
God would freely and by choice give human beings within their nature consciousness and self-awareness, an understanding that they have identity as an individual. There would be in a sense significant, yet limited freedom present within the human consciousness to have an understanding of personal identity, apart from every other individual entity, but this in itself would not be free will or choice, and would not be libertarian free will.[12] Human choice would be caused by the human nature which has consciousness and from that motives and desires. Human nature and consciousness does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. This a reasonable explanation that does not use a vicious regress in trying to explain that every human choice made through libertarian free will is made by a previous choice, and so on. It must be noted that God would be the primary cause of human actions, while human beings (and angelic beings at times) would be the secondary cause of human actions. The concept of human beings as a secondary cause of actions is essential to the idea of compatibilism or soft determinism.
Craig and the First Cause
In The First Cause argument article on this blog I discussed William Lane Craig’s understanding of first cause.
He presents the kalam cosmological argument.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successiveaddition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[13]
Premise 1 deduces that something cannot come from nothing, and that the material universe is not self-caused.[14] Premise 2 therefore states that the universe began and 2.1 deduces that the actual infinite is impossible. An actual infinite cannot exist because if there was an infinite, limitless past, we would never have arrived at the present. Therefore 2.11 is correct, as we cannot have an actual infinite (past), nor can we have an infinite temporal regress as described in 2.12, because that would equal an actual infinite as Craig would put it. 2.13 is therefore reasonable and rather than reality consisting of an infinite past, it consists of a finite past that had a beginning.
With 2.21, Craig notes that one cannot have an actual infinite collection of things by simple addition. This means that a proposed infinite past could not be reached as the formation of an actual infinite would not be reached whether one proceeds to or from infinity.[15] The events described in 2.2 would therefore be finite and not infinite in agreement with 2.23. Premise 3 concludes that the universe has a cause.
If matter and the universe is eternal and therefore unlimited in time, I have not read a convincing explanation that explains how we could arrive at our present state, and indeed have a future. From the first cause argument I would deduce that the universe has a cause and this cause is an infinite, omnipotent being who has always existed beyond time and matter, and created time and matter. I realize that for the finite human mind this type of creator or God cannot be completely comprehended, only apprehended to a point, but it seems that the idea of first cause is not contradictory where as a vicious regress associated with an infinite temporal regress of events is very problematic because neither the present or future would be realized because of an unlimited past.
Joseph Smith and Gods
Joseph Smith the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints writes that there is a plurality of gods. Please note, this is not an attack against the Church, or the people within it, but simply a review of a theological point. I am not interested in attacking in a militant fashion any religious or philosophical group. I am focused on reviewing ideas in order to grow in my understanding and to perhaps help others in an understanding of the Biblical God. I think the topics I discuss are already controversial enough and so there is no need to be militant as well! However, I firmly believe in taking a stand for the truth.
Smith preached on June 16,1844, eleven days before his death, that a plurality of Gods existed and that the head God organized the heavens and the earth.[16] Smith explains that the idea of the God of the Christian Trinity is a strange one.[17] He also states that the Bible supports the idea of the plurality of Gods.[18] The founder of the Latter-day Saints reasons that if Jesus Christ had a Father, that God the Father would have a Father as well. This concept would create an infinite regression of Father Gods.[19] This established a vicious regress within the Latter-day Saints theology concerning God.
The Walter Martin website has some interesting comments on this view. Martin first points out that the Bible in Isaiah, clearly states that there is just one God in Chapters 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 45:5, and 21–22.[20] Martin also mentions that the Lord is called one Lord in Deuteronomy 6:4.[21] Martin further explains that others are called god in the Bible such as Moses to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1, but this is a metaphorical use and is not claiming that Moses is the one and only true God.[22] In Psalm 82 and John 10:34, the judges according to Martin are not intrinsic deity, but became mighty ones like Gods in the eyes of the people. In Psalm 82 and John 10:34 the judges are shown to be sinful men that were in no way to be confused with the God of the Bible in nature.[23] The Bible in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is not only stating that there is only one true God to worship, but that there is only one God in existence period.
I am not going to heavily discuss Trinitarian theology within this article, but I shall state that it is believed within Christianity that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons of one, substance, nature and essence, and therefore are not three eternal Gods, but one eternal God. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is called the exact representation of God’s nature, and in Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is called God. Philip Edgcume Hughes writes that in Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word translated “nature” denotes the very essence of God. Christ is the representation of the Father and shares the same substance as God.[24] So whatever distinctions can be drawn concerning the Father and Son, Biblically it must be concluded that from Hebrews 1:3 they are of the same nature (υποστασεως )[25] and substance. They are not two Gods, but two distinctions within one God, and the Holy Spirit from Acts 5 is also shown to be God sharing in the same nature and substance as the Father and Son. Jesus Christ as both God and man has a human body, but shares the same spiritual substance as the Father and Holy Spirit.
Matthew J. Slick notes that the Latter-day Saints' idea of Gods, which originated with Joseph Smith, teaches an infinite regression of causes.[26] Each God came into existence from a previous God, and this has gone on in an infinite past.[27] There cannot be an infinite regression of Gods because this would require an infinite amount of time which would not allow us to arrive at the present. In contrast the idea of the Christian Trinity is that God has always existed and existed prior to time and therefore God has not lived for an infinite amount of time. God created time, but existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of time and matter. Mary Kochan mentions the same problem with the Latter-day Saints' concept and states that with an infinite regression of Gods there is no way to get to the present and that time had to have a beginning in order for the present to exist.[28]
It appears the Smith’s notion of a plurality of Gods influenced the Latter-day Saints' theology which leads to infinite regression, but it is a contradictory view that features a vicious regress.
[1] Blackburn (1996: 324).[2] Blackburn (1996: 324).[3] Blackburn (1996: 324).[4] Tolhurst (1996: 835).[5] Tolhurst (1996: 835).[6] Bradley (1996: 371).[7] Bradley (1996: 371).[8] Bradley (1996: 371).[9] Bradley (1996: 372).[10] Edwards (1754)(2006: 2.1: 1-2).[11] Edwards (1754)(2006: 2.1: 2).[12] Libertarian free will is the idea that a person is able to perform another action in the place of one that has been committed. This action cannot be predetermined by any circumstance or desire.[13] Craig (1991)(2006: 2).[14] Craig (1991)(2006: 12).[15] Craig (1991)(2006: 7).[16] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[17] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[18] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[19] Smith (1844)(2006: 1).[20] Martin (2006: 1).[21] Martin (2006: 1).[22] Martin (2006: 1).[23] Martin (2006: 1).[24] Hughes (1990: 43-44).[25] The Greek New Testament (1993: 741).[26] Slick (2006: 1).[27] Slick (2006: 1).[28] Kochan (2002: 1).
---
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) 'First Cause Argument', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BROWNING, W. R. F. (1997) 'Alpha', in Oxford Dictionary of The Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.
CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas.http://www.jonathanedwards.com
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.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
GEISLER, N.L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm pp. 1-2.
HUGHES, P. E. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
HUGHES, P. E. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
HUGHES, P. E. (1996) ‘Grace’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’ http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html p. 1.
KOCHAN, MARY (2002) 'Drawing the Line for Mormons - A Closer Look at the LDS Church', Powell River, B.C., Catholic Information Resource Center. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0112.html
KOCHAN, MARY (2002) 'Drawing the Line for Mormons - A Closer Look at the LDS Church', Powell River, B.C., Catholic Information Resource Center. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0112.html
KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html pp. 1-5.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org. http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc
MOUNCE, R.H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org. http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc
MOUNCE, R.H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
REED, HOLLY (2004) ‘Jonathan Edwards’, in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology.
SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.
SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) A logical proof that Mormonism is false, Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm
SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org
SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org
STORMS, SAM (2006) 'Jonathan Edwards on the Will', Kansas City, Missouri. Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoyinggodministries.com http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=368
TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.
THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993), Munster, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, United Bible Societies.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
