Edgar Sheffield Brightman and the finite god

Bosphorus Bridge, Istanbul, Turkey

Europe on the left, Asia on the right.

This will be my first attempt at date publishing an article in the month after actually posting. So it is October 27 and I will place the date as November 1. Blogger only recently has allowed the dates of my articles to be moved ahead. I tried previously on several occasions.

This is good for me as I will have to go away to Arizona and California in November or December and I still want a consistent two postings per blog per month.

Edgar Sheffield Brightman (1884-1953) is a philosopher and theologian noted for believing in a finite God. Lavely (2007: 121). John H. Lavely (2007) explains that Brightman ‘carved out’ a concept of ‘theistic finitism.’ Lavely (2007: 121). Brightman within A Philosophy of Religion (1940) calls God the ‘finite-infinite controller of the given.’ Brightman (1940: 336). Lavely (2007: 122). He developed an original view on the finite God different than John Stuart Mill, William James (both discussed in earlier posts on this blog) and Alfred North Whitehead. His view features a shift from traditional theism, but this is not a rejection of the Christian faith from his perspective. He offers from this perspective, a true Christian expression within a more reasonable approach to traditional supernaturalism. Lavely (2007: 124). Doubts concerning concepts of God within Christian theism need to be contemplated and discussed. Brightman (1930: 9).

Brightman explains in The Problem of God (1930) the new concept of God has not confined the divine creative work to a single week, and God does not cease to produce and maintain newer life forms. Brightman (1930: 68). As there is scientific evolution and progression in the material realm, he reasons there can be expansion with God as in more far reaching goals and development for the physical realm than persons had previously realized. Brightman (1930: 68). He reasons that God is not fixed but is still growing and expanding. Brightman (1930: 70). He questions traditional concepts that God is a metaphysical unity that is perfectly at peace with self, as in no struggle, instead God may not be so separate from the physical world and the struggles that go with it. Brightman (1930: 94). Brightman reasons there are struggles within the divine being and God has genuine problems to deal with in the physical realm as a finite and limited God. Brightman (1930: 94). The expansion of God means he must lack some knowledge and power, and this view contradicts those within theology that place a strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty, as does Calvinism. Brightman (1930: 102).

According to Gordon Clark (1959) Brightman is also a noted empiricist and works out philosophy of religion along these lines. Clark (1959: 34). However, philosophical interpretations should be reasonably understood within human experience and should never be under the subordination of logic or empiricism. Every item of experience properly understood should point a person toward God and is evidence for the existence of God. Brightman (1930: 62). Persons were not to follow the logic of the rationalists, but a reasonable approach is to follow a set of empirical principles and concepts by which human beings organize their experience within the universe. Brightman subscribes to a view of ‘personalism’ as in the term referring to the ‘ultimate and irreducible unit of reality,’ and there exists no realities other than persons. Lavely (2007: 124). James Richmond (1999) notes it is the philosophical viewpoint which views human personality as the starting point, and this may include a personal God as a key to understanding the nature of the world. Richmond (1999: 443). Everything that is in existence, exists in the mind of a person, of some sort, on some level. Brightman (1958: 135). The concept of ‘person’ was a ‘concrete universal.’ Lavely (2007: 124). God was the uncreated creator of humanity, ‘the ground of all being’ and the one that sustains the universe. Lavely (2007: 124). God was also person. Personalism would include God’s creations and reality is a community of persons sustained by God, the Supreme Person. Lavely (2007: 124). The total view of human experience leads one to a belief in some sort of Supreme Being, who is also supremely good, beautiful and of reason. Brightman (1930: 63). Creation did not come ex nihilo from the hand of God, and matter is not something external from God. Lavely (2007: 124). Matter and the physical world is therefore not completely separate from God, and in a sense nature is a representation of the divine creator. God, in fact was capable of growth and can accomplish more within reality than he has presently.

Lavely reasons that Brightman’s view on omnipotence is ‘ambiguous’ and is difficult to explain within his overall description and understanding of God. Lavely (2007: 132). This is a reasonable point. Omnipotence may literally describe the quality of everything to God, in other words God is omnipotent, not in a traditional sense but rather God has all the power there is, and all the power that is available. Lavely (2007: 132). God is omnitemporal as opposed to unchanging. God is all-powerful in a sense, only within the finite realm and not beyond it, and God can also change and expand within that realm. God is ‘creative, supreme, and personal’ yet is limited and there are experiences which are eternally existent which he does not create. Nevertheless, God can control the experiences that he did not create. Any understanding of God as omnipotent would be ‘derived predominantly from abstract thought’ as the view and theory cannot be based on experience alone, although humanity does experience the power of God.

I view the finite God as logically possible but would still leave the need for the infinite first cause. Ultimately I reason that even if human beings were created by a finite God, the ultimate first cause is the one that human beings should ultimately appeal to as this being could overrule the lesser deity. I would make any appeal for everlasting life to the most powerful good being in existence.

Brightman's finite god is logically possible.

A finite god is not Biblical. Otto Weber suggests God has unlimited capacity and unrestricted will. Weber (1955)(1981: 440). God is unrestricted in what he determines within self and outside of self. Presbyterian theologian John M. Frame admits the term omnipotence is not in Scripture, but reasons the concept is Biblical. He deduces that based on the Bible, it is impossible for anything to occur outside of what God has willed to happen. Frame (2002: 518). Also Weber (1955)(1981: 440).

Genesis 1 begins with God that existed prior to his material creation. He therefore has power over finite creation and in that sense, at least it can be reasoned, is omnipotent and infinite.

It can be reasoned God existed prior to the creation of finite angelic creatures, and once again can be reasoned as omnipotent and infinite.

Brightman’s god is hyper-speculative.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1930) The Problem of God, New York, The Abingdon Press.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1940) A Philosophy of Religion, New York, Prentice-Hall.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1958) Person and Reality, New York, Ronald Press.

CLARK, GORDON C. (1959) ‘Special Divine Revelation as Rational’, in Carl F.H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, London, The Tyndale Press.

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

LAVELY, JOHN H. (2007) ‘Good-and Evil and Finite-Infinite God’, in The Boston Personalist Tradition in Philosophy, Social Ethics, and Theology, Macon, Georgia, Macon University Press.

RICHMOND, JAMES (1999) ‘Personalism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

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

Here is an article somewhat related to this one from satire and theology:

atheistic praxis and other

The final battles of Revelation

Vancouver (photo from trekearth.com)

Happy Thanksgiving.

This is a non-identical article, with edits from today, of a June 2007 post. This article was not read by most of my current readers. I think it is a slightly different type of article for this blog, and the topic is good for me to review. In other words, it is more Biblical Studies focused than most of my philosophical theology and philosophy of religion posts.

My Mom and I have caught two errors so far in the copied and pasted material from the June 2007 post. The errors were not in the original. That is frustrating! Blogger!!

I fix when I see.

The term eschatology is derived from the Greek word eschaton meaning last and refers to the ultimate culmination of history where Jesus Christ returns to earth and fully establishes his rule and Kingdom. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 46). Eschatology is the theology that seeks to fully understand the direction and purpose of history and progressing events. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 46). Henry C. Thiessen writes that eschatology includes the concepts of the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, judgments, the millennium, and the final state. Thiessen (1956: 440).

Revelation is a complex book.

Revelation uses figurative language in parts.

There are a variety of interpretations for parts of Revelation within orthodox Christianity.

Caution should be taken with secondary doctrines established via Revelation.

I am not going to write in any great detail on millennial theory within this article as that is a complex subject apart from the complex subject that I am already discussing in a very non-exhaustive fashion. My purpose in this article is to examine the book of Revelation where it appears to portray the idea of two final battles against evil, and this seems to indicate an understanding of some type of figurative and not plain literal view of much of the book. There is a millennium or some length of time between the defeat of the beast and the false prophet and the ultimate defeat of Satan.

1. The final battle with the beast and false prophet

Robert H. Mounce writes that in Revelation 19:19 the beast, also known as Antichrist has brought his forces against Jesus Christ and his army. Mounce (1990: 349). In Revelation 16:13-16, the dragon, beast, and false prophet send out demons to the kings of the world and gather them for war against Almighty God. Mounce (1990: 349). Mounce explains that in the Hebrew this place is known as Har-Magedon and some scholars read it as Armageddon. Mounce (1990: 301). F.F. Bruce reasons that the term Har-Magedon is better here than Armageddon. Bruce (1986: 1620). Greek scholar, James Strong defines the term Armageddon or Har-Megiddon as referring to a symbol, or name. Strong (1986: 17). Another Greek scholar, Walter Bauer notes that Armageddon is a mystic place said to be Hebrew, and has been identified with Megiddo and Jerusalem, but interpretations have been faced with many difficulties. Bauer (1979: 107). Mounce writes that it is not very clear where this battle will take place exactly, but it could be a mountain or hill country near the ancient city of Megiddo. Mounce (1990: 301). Both Mounce and Bruce pointed out that there is no mountain at Megiddo. Mounce (1990: 301) Bruce (1986: 1620). Mounce writes that if the term Armageddon is favoured over Har-Magedon the reference may relate to the city of Megiddo rather than to a mountain, or hill country. Mounce (1990: 301-302). Revelation 19:20 describes the capture of the beast and false prophet and their casting into the lake of fire that is the place of final judgment. In the first final battle, the one who sits upon the horse, Christ, defeats the beast and false prophet. This is the battle of Har-Magedon, but yet according to the book of Revelation is not the final battle between God and Satan.

2. The final battle with Satan

In Revelation 20:1-3, Satan is captured, and thrown in the abyss for a thousand years. This takes place after the defeat of the beast and false prophet and their casting into the lake of fire. Neither Bruce nor Mounce claim that the abyss is the same place as the lake of fire and Mounce explains that the abyss was thought of as a place of confinement for disobedient spirits. Mounce (1990: 352). Bauer defines the abyss as depth and the underworld. Bauer (1979: 2). Specifically, in Revelation 20, it is an abode where the devil is kept. Bauer (1979: 2). I cannot see any direct connection here with the lake of fire which is the final judgment place for Satan, and those persons outside of Christ, as in Revelation 20:11:15. This means that quite possibly the abyss is not the same place as the lake of fire. I have noticed that Revelation 20 does not state that demonic beings are thrown into the lake of fire, but Erickson correctly points out that Jesus in Matthew 25:41 states that the devil and his angels shall be cast into the same everlasting fire. Erickson (1994: 451). This statement from Jesus appears to rule out demonic beings being punished in the abyss forever. There seems to be a reasonable possibility that the abyss is the same place as Hades, as in Romans 10:7 for example, where Paul uses the term abyss as meaning the abode of the dead. The abyss in one sense is the place of the dead and therefore all departed spirits, and in another sense is Hades where those outside of God and Christ reside in spirit form before the resurrection as in Luke 16:19-31, and where Satan shall be bound for a time until his final battle with God. Revelation 20:7 explains that after the thousand years, Satan is released and will deceive the nations of Gog and Magog that shall be gathered against God and his followers in the beloved city. But, verse 10 notes the devil is captured and thrown into the lake of fire. Chapter 20 continues as those persons outside of Christ are judged and thrown into the lake of fire. Mounce explains that Gog and Magog in Revelation are symbolic figures that do not represent specific geographic regions. They represent hostile nations from all over the earth. Mounce (1990: 362). Bruce agrees the Gog and Magog are symbolic and represent world powers against God. Bruce (1986: 1625).

Interestingly, in the defeat of the beast and false prophet, the one who sat upon the horse, Christ, brings with him an army, and the beast and false prophet are captured and the Lord kills the rest with a sword from his mouth in Revelation 19:21. In Revelation 20:6 after the capture of Satan, the resurrection of those in Christ is described and they are to rule with Christ for a thousand years. In the battle against Satan himself, it does not specifically state that immortal, resurrected, Old Testament followers of God, and New Testament Christians actually participate in fighting against Satanic forces and unregenerate persons, but fire comes down from heaven and devours those that surround the camp of the saints. This fire from heaven ends the battle, but it is interesting to ponder whether any fighting takes place before this occurring. God being infinite and omnipotent could easily take care of matters himself, but it would be fascinating if certain members of the Kingdom of God with immortal, resurrected bodies were actually allowed, and perhaps encouraged to physically battle the powers of darkness. I can imagine that some Christians would be fascinated by this possibility! I know that I would be. I am not stating that this is likely God’s will in this case, but perhaps in a sense, it would allow those in Christ to physically and spiritually fight against the evil that plagued them throughout their original earthly lives. I would reason it more likely that God simply wins the battle against Satan and his forces on his own, but if before the final battle with Satan, the millennium is an actual amount of time, including perhaps a literal thousand years, I ponder on whether or not resurrected saints would be involved in policing the planet. Those outside of Christ are not judged until after the millennium and so this means that there is a possibility that persons that are not resurrected could share the planet with resurrected saints for a thousand years. Mounce writes that the resurrected saints in the millennium are thought by some to only be former martyrs, but this would mean that most followers of the Biblical God are raised with the unregenerate and from looking at Revelation I do not see this as clearly explained. Mounce (1990: 360). Revelation 20:6 notes that blessed and holy are those that participate in the first resurrection over which the second death has no power and this would seem to describe all Old Testament and New Testament followers of God through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ.

BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

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

Blackberry photos of the neighbourhood:













From Facebook...once again I am no Bob Ross.

The philosophical problem of evil

New Westminster, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Please note, although this was written in 2003, it is still a major focus of my current secular PhD work.

From MPhil

2. The Philosophical Problem of Evil

McGrath pointed out a weakness with the philosophical discussion and stated his desire to concentrate on a theological remedy to the problem of evil within his work.

Quote:

Many of the theological and philosophical texts I have wrestled with seem to be much more concerned with upholding the integrity of a God who seems to allow suffering, than with saying anything helpful to those who are bewildered and confused by that suffering. I can think of few things less helpful to someone going through pain than a sophisticated theological defence of the integrity of God, or even a gentle romp through the subtle logic of necessary evil.

Now that kind discussion needs to take place. But it happens too often without any consideration of the anguish of those who need comforting and reassuring in the face of their sadness. Suffering is a pastoral and spiritual issue, not just a theological problem. In the book, I have not the slightest intention of presenting myself either as a spokesman or as some kind of defence attorney for God. God is perfectly capable of looking after himself. The real issue is not about defending God’s honour or integrity, but about making sense of our experience. McGrath (1992: 8-9).

McGrath is espousing a viewpoint similar to one that I took with my Graduating Essay at Trinity Western University. The philosophical discussion concerning the problem of evil is beneficial but the theological remedy is often overlooked in theological works since the critics of God and Christianity have, in the past, attacked the notion of the infinite, omnipotent, perfectly holy God who has evil existing within his creation.

For people suffering with the problem of evil, and that includes all human beings, the theological remedy to evil and suffering through Christ must be a vital part of theological apologetics. It can complement the philosophical discussion, and the revelation of God should be considered.

Carl Henry wrote: "Not even theistic arguments can fully vindicate God’s graciousness in the face of human evil if they appeal simply to empirical consideration or to philosophical reasoning devoid of revelational illumination." Henry (1983: 282).

Henri Blocher had the same sentiment but in slightly stronger terms. In his text Evil and the Cross:

The failure of the explanations of evil that we have examined as exposed in our preceding chapters, taking them according to their fundamental types, shows them for what they are, when confronted with experience and when the concepts are analysed. But it is Divine Revelation which reveals truly and with complete certainty. Holy Scripture, the Word of God, the ‘normative norm,’ is the only standard which allows us to distinguish between those insights which agree with it, and those all too human false trails in those systems of thought. Blocher (1994: 84).

Both Henry and Blocher share with McGrath the idea that in the philosophical problem of evil discussion it is not as central to Christianity as the theological remedy provided through Christ’s atoning work. However, I think Blocher’s words are slightly too strong by calling the explanations of the problem of evil a failure. Yes, the philosophical discussion is limited but it deals with issues not solved within the theological remedy. He is correct in that the theological remedy alone provides complete certainty of the end of suffering. That certainty, however, does not deal with some philosophical questions raised, although it could be argued that the answers to those philosophical questions will no longer matter once people do not suffer. Critics, however, need to see that Christianity is philosophically feasible in order to accept the possibility that divine revelation leads to the defeat of the problem of evil.

I think, however, the philosophical discussion needs to be complemented by the theological remedy. I can understand McGrath’s perspective on suffering as in many post-Enlightenment works the faith has been under attack because of the problem of evil. The attacks were of a philosophical nature and thus dealt with so, but ultimately the defence of Christianity comes down to divine revelation. McGrath stated in Iustitia Dei:

The central teaching of the Christian faith is that reconciliation has been effected between and God and sinful man through Jesus Christ, and that this new relation between God and man is a present possibility for those outside the church, and a present actuality for those within its bounds. McGrath (1986: 1).

Since to McGrath this is the central teaching, it makes sense in apologetics featuring the problem of evil, that the work of Jesus Christ in atonement which includes restoration and reconciliation, must be central. He thus thinks discussions on the problem of evil that do not deal with this in strong fashion, are lacking. Suffering was written to comfort those struggling with the problem of evil and to inform them that ultimate victory over suffering will be had through Jesus Christ.

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

HENRY, CARL. (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

McGRATH, ALISTER. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.


New Westminster, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

The dangers of theological error...

On a British comedy television program in 2004, Jonathan Ross stated that a Muslim extremist suicide bomber was expecting to be taken to heaven where he would be rewarded with 72 virgins.

Instead he was given a 72 year old virgin.

Among some in the radical liberal church my blogs should be as popular as head lice in a hair salon.

I just posted this on Jeff's blog in comments:

Jeff

The New Testament claims Christ is God, for example: John 1, the word, John 8: 58, eternal.

Islam denies this theological point.

New Testament manuscript and partial manuscript evidence supports traditional Christian theology.

There is no evidence of great significant corruption of historical New Testament documents, in regard to content and theology.

Religious movements that claim Christ as a prophet or being sent from God, and yet deny the New Testament in context, lack credibility.



From Scripture Jesus Christ is noted as eternal (John 8:58) and is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Revelation 22:13). Christ is God. Christ's resurrection from the dead and his overall support from historically based Scripture provides him with a huge edge in the credibility department.

Mr. Avatar Adi Da Samraj falsely claims to be the supremely great spiritual being.

A few thoughts

Quotations and my comments in brackets.

- Save the whales. Collect the whole set. (I keep hearing about saving the gay whales, or it is the gays in Wales?)

- Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? (Hint...those ones are phony.)


CD burner for sale.

John Stuart Mill and omnipotence

John Stuart Mill and omnipotence

Castle Conwy, Wales 2001 

Reformatted: November 30, 2021, original 2009

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Blackburn states Mill is ‘the most influential liberal thinker of the nineteenth century.’[1] He is the son of Scottish philosopher James Mill (1773-1836).[2] George W. Carey (2002) writes that John Stuart Mill reasoned that traditional Christianity needed to be replaced[3] and Mill introduced a concept of a ‘limited God.’[4] Mill reasons there is a ‘final cause’ that appears to be God working within the natural order,[5] but this God was not omnipotent and had limited powers that were incapable of bringing about the full reality of what God wanted.[6] Mill within Theism from 1833 explains that there could be no real belief in a ‘Creator and Governor’ until humankind had begun to understand the confused phenomena which existed around them.[7] 

Humanity must bring itself out of the chaos and confusion of reality to have a workable system in able to work out ‘a single plan.’[8] This type of world was anticipated ‘by individuals of exceptional genius’ but could only become true after a long period of scientific examination and thought.[9] Mill desired to replace the God of Christianity with a Religion of Humanity.[10] He reasoned traditional Christianity had been overrated in its promotion of human virtue and morality in society.[11] The Christian God was not the actual creator of the world.[12] Mill’s views strike me as influential on modern western religious thought. I can support, in limited terms, human effort to understand reality and improve human conditions. Indeed humanity should come together as much as possible to develop a plan in order to benefit all of humanity. 

I would not support a ‘Religion of Humanity,’ but do favour persons of various religious and non-religious backgrounds working together for human benefit. Mill rejects Christianity and traditional Christian doctrine concerning omnipotence. Mill’s deity is similar to the ‘Platonic Demiurge’ and this deity simply develops matter from preexisting chaos and therefore would not only be limited in power but also finite in nature. Mill supports a concept of a first cause[13] as in a series of events[14] but this leaves the nagging question and problem of what was the cause of the Demiurge? An infinite eternal God can be understood as the first cause not needing a cause.[15] 

A finite deity, although admittedly logically possible, requires further explanation.[16] If the being is not revealed through Scriptural revelation, it is a God of primarily philosophical speculation and requires further elaboration on the part of Mill in regard to, for instance, why humanity should believe in and follow this type of deity, assuming that there is not a greater, infinite, eternal first cause that would necessarily exist behind that being. 

[1] Blackburn (1996: 243). 

[2] Blackburn (1996: 243). 

[3] Carey (2002: 115). 

[4] Carey (2002: 115). 

[5] Carey (2002: 115-116). Mill within Theism discusses the need for a cause and beginning to a series of individual facts. Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). Everything persons know of has a cause and owes existence to a cause. He ponders on how the world can be indebted to a cause for which the world has its existence. He deduces ‘that not everything which we know derives its existence from a cause, but only every event or change.’ Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 10). 

[6] Carey (2002: 116). David Gordon writes that Mill believed God was limited in nature and therefore not omnipotent. Gordon (2002: 3). 

[7] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6). 

[8] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6).

[9] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6).

[10] Carey (2002: 110). In The Utility of Religion from 1874, Mill explains that Christianity offers rewards in the next life for good conduct and the Religion of Humanity would be superior as human virtue would exist for unselfish reasons. Mill (1874)(2002: 16). Although I reason Christians should do what is good and right, just because it is good and right, and not primarily for a possible reward, Mill does not demonstrate in my mind a conclusive argument in how human beings, as they are, can or will ever operate with completely unselfish motives. Is all selfishness wrong, or does some degree of human self-concern and a desire for self-benefit remain an integral part of how God intended humanity to be? [11] Carey (2002: 114). 

[12] Carey (2002: 116). Gordon reasons that Mill was ‘no Christian.’ Gordon (2000: 2). 

[13] Carey (2002: 116). Gordon (2002: 3). Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 10). 

[14] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). 

[15] God’s essence is eternal and necessary (logically must exist), and the finite universe is temporal and contingent (not necessary). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 191 Volume 1). [16] Hypothetically, humanity and the universe could have been created by a finite God that was created by another cause. 

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

CAREY, GEORGE W. (2002) ‘The Authoritarian Secularism of John Stuart Mill’, in On Raeder’s Mill and the Religion of Humanity, Volume 15, Number 1, Columbia, University of Missouri Press. 

GORDON, DAVID (2000) ‘John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control’, in The Mises Review, Volume 6, Number 1, Auburn, Alabama, Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1833)(1985)(2009) Theism: John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(2002) The Utility of Religion, London, Longman, Green, and Reader. 

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

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ’Demiurge’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Blackberry photos: September 2009