The aloneness argument against classical theism

Schmid, Joseph C.; Mullins, R. T.

doi:10.1017/s0034412520000554

Cited by 8 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Let's proceed to §2. 3 This understanding of parts in connection with DDS is found in Spencer (2017, p. 123), Brower (2009, p. 105), Stump (2013, p. 33), Grant (2012, p. 254), Schmid and Mullins (2021), Leftow (2015, p. 48), Leftow (2009, p. 21), Sijuwade (2021), Kerr (2019, p. 54), andDolezal (2011, p. xvii), inter alia. 4 Two notes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…See, e.g., Pruss (2008) and Grant (2012Grant ( , 2019. 10 See, inter alia, Mullins (2016, p. 101;, p. 92), Brunner (1952, Craig (2001, p. 254), Broadie (2010, p. 53), Schmid and Mullins (2021), Lebens (2020, p. 31), andWard (2020, p. 15). 11 'Will' expresses not a temporally posterior but rather a causally posterior sense.…”

Section: Intentional Collapsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second: on the classical theistic commitment to God's creative act extending to any item distinct from God, see Rogers (1996, p. 167), Bergmann and Brower (2006, p. 361), Grant (2019, ch. 1), and Schmid and Mullins (2021). 2 A positive ontological item is anything that exists (i.e., anything that has being or is within reality).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

From Modal Collapse to Providential Collapse

Schmid

2022

Philosophia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The modal collapse objection to classical theism has received significant attention among philosophers as of late. My aim in this paper is to advance this blossoming debate. First, I briefly survey the modal collapse literature and argue that classical theists avoid modal collapse if and only if they embrace an indeterministic link between God and his effects. Second, I argue that this indeterminism poses two challenges to classical theism. The first challenge is that it collapses God's status as an intentional agent who knows and intends what he is bringing about in advance. The second challenge is that it collapses God's providential control over which creation obtains.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Intentional Collapsementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From Modal Collapse to Providential Collapse

Schmid

2022

Philosophia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inference from ( 1) and ( 2) to (3), according to the intersubstitutability of identicals version of the SMCA, relies on the principle that if 'God' refers to one and the same thing as 'God's act of creation'-as captured in (2)-then the latter can be 7 Modal collapse arguments have been developed that also focus on God's knowledge. For treatments, see Schmid and Mullins (2021), Grant (2012), Grant and Spencer (2015), and Moreland and Craig (2003, p. 525). I will only be focusing on modal collapse arguments based either on God's pure actuality or else God's identity with God's acts.…”

Section: Intersubstitutability Of Identicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fruitful death of modal collapse arguments

Schmid

2021

Int J Philos Relig

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modal collapse arguments are all the rage in certain philosophical circles as of late. The arguments purport to show that classical theism entails the absurdly fatalistic conclusion that everything exists necessarily. My first aim in this paper is bold: to put an end to action-based modal collapse arguments against classical theism. To accomplish this, I first articulate the 'Simple Modal Collapse Argument' and then characterize and defend Tomaszewski's criticism thereof. Second, I critically examine Mullins' new modal collapse argument formulated in response to the aforementioned criticism. I argue that Mullins' new argument does not succeed. Third, I critically examine a powers-based modal collapse argument against classical theism that has received much less attention in the literature. Fourth, I show why God's being purely actual, as well God's being identical to each of God's acts, simply cannot entail modal collapse given indeterministic causation. This, I take it, signals the death of modal collapse arguments. But not all hope is lost for proponents of modal collapse arguments-for the death is a fruitful one insofar as it paves the way for new inquiry into at least two new potential problems for classical theism. Showing this is my paper's second aim.

show abstract

“…What is the thing, then, to which an author of this article is related, such that the extrinsic unsurrounded predication is true of the author? In Schmid and Mullins' own words, letting the author be 'S', what is the 'something outside S to which S relationally stands' (Schmid and Mullins (2021), 2)?…”

Section: Our Replymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Aloneness Argument fails

Pawl

Grant

2021

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schmid and Mullins present what they call ‘the Aloneness Argument’ for the inconsistency of four theses from classical theism: the doctrine of divine simplicity, the doctrine of divine omniscience, the claim that God is free to create or not to create, and the claim that it is possible that God and nothing but God exist. We deny that they have shown an inconsistency between these theses. We maintain that, depending on how certain premises are interpreted, one or another premise is false. We also offer a positive proposal regarding a simple God's knowledge that he is alone in a world where he doesn't create anything.

show abstract

The aloneness argument against classical theism

Cited by 8 publications

References 17 publications

From Modal Collapse to Providential Collapse

From Modal Collapse to Providential Collapse

The fruitful death of modal collapse arguments

The Aloneness Argument fails

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About