God's nature simply is goodness
-----------------------------------------------------
That is a mere assertion.Why I should adopt God s nature as standard of goodness and not my nature?Because his nature is holy?By what standard?

A know, some contrary philosophy just won't cut it...

Careful! Remember that Phil doesn't accept infinite regress.

What distinguishes the modal cosmological argument from the kalam cosmological argument is that it is consistent with the idea that the universe has an infinite past. The kalam cosmological argument rests on the controversial claim that the universe has a beginning in time. The argument from contingency, in contrast, is consistent with the universe having existed from eternity.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/

Sorry...I was asking from a devil's advocate angle.

I read it as such at the Philosophy of Religion site.

But I still think we're plagued by definition problems. Did you answer those somewhere I missed?

I did answer all the concerns you posed at some point. But feel free to ask them again.

Great. So the universe is non-contingent.

Are you arguing for this or simply asserting it?

But saying that a non-contingent entity is necessary to exist is not the
same as demonstrating that a non-contingent entity necessarily exists.

Correct, that is the point of the original argument--to show that it is necessary for a non-contingent entity to exist.

But the point I made above is only a philosophical statement if you basically claim all thinking is philosophical.

That is correct. Anything a person says or does has some underlying philosophical assumptions included with it. There is no "non-philosophical" thought or word.

That's why philosophy, and more properly metaphysics, has been called the "first science".

Sure, you can call them "generic assumptions" but that doesn't make them any less of being open to philosophical investigation to show if they are rational or irrational assumptions.

I didn't claim that, now did i?

You assume and have faith that its okay to believe that the world is actually intelligible, philosophy tells you if that belief is actually a rational one.

That's not even intelligible. And philosophy, by the way, does not tell me that's a rational position. Philosophy is post-facto rationalization. Pretty, but not useful in that way.

(Obviously you probably realized that the text I quoted above is also a philosophical statement. You really do like philosophy! ;)

I like some philosophy. Most of it is bunk. But the point I made above is only a philosophical statement if you basically claim all thinking is philosophical.

You dilute the word so much it has no value.