We argue that there is a conflict among classical theism's commitments to divine simplicity, divine creative freedom, and omniscience. We start by defining key terms for the debate related to classical theism. Then we articulate a new argument, the Aloneness Argument, aiming to establish a conflict among these attributes. In broad outline, the argument proceeds as follows. Under classical theism, it's possible that God exists without anything apart from Him. Any knowledge God has in such a world would be wholly (...) intrinsic. But there are contingent truths in every world, including the world in which God exists alone. So, it's possible that God contingently has wholly intrinsic knowledge. But whatever is contingent and wholly intrinsic is an accident. So, God possibly has an accident. This is incompatible with classical theism. Finally, we consider and rebut several objections. (shrink)

Edward Feser defends the ‘Neo-Platonic proof ’ for the existence of the God of classical theism. After articulating the argument and a number of preliminaries, I first argue that premise three of Feser’s argument—the causal principle that every composite object requires a sustaining efficient cause to combine its parts—is both unjustified and dialectically ill-situated. I then argue that the Neo-Platonic proof fails to deliver the mindedness of the absolutely simple being and instead militates against its mindedness. Finally, I uncover two (...) tensions between Trinitarianism and the Neo-Platonic proof. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

Surely God, as a perfectly rational being, created the universe for some _reason_. But is God’s creating the universe for a reason compatible with divine impassibility? That is the question I investigate in this article. The _prima facie_ tension between impassibility and God’s creating for a reason arises from impassibility’s commitment to God being uninfluenced by anything _ad extra_. If God is uninfluenced in this way, asks the detractor, how could he be moved to create anything at all? This _prima (...) facie_ tension has recently been formalized and dubbed the ‘Problem of Arbitrary Creation’. In this article, I defend a new extension of this problem. I begin by characterizing classical theism, divine simplicity, and divine impassibility. I then spell out the Problem of Arbitrary Creation as developed by R. T. Mullins. I next raise a worry for Mullins’ version of the argument. Finally, I extend the argument and show how my extension avoids the aforementioned worry. (shrink)

Ovaj rad odgovara na argument modalnog kolapsa protiv božanske jednostavnosti ili klasičnog teizma koji nude neoklasični ili kompleksni teisti. Argument modalnog kolapsa tvrdi da ako je Bog apsolutno jednostavan i apsolutno neophodan, tada je Božji čin stvaranja apsolutno neophodan, pa je stoga postojanje stvorenog svijeta također apsolutno neophodno. To znači da se Bog i njegova kreacija urušavaju u jednu modalnu kategoriju apsolutne nužnosti bez ikakvih kontingentnih bića. Moj odgovor je utemeljen na islamskoj neoplatonstičkoj filozofiji Ibn Sine i islamskoj tradiciji. Nudim (...) četiri argumenta koji dopuštaju muslimanskom neoplatoničaru da apsorbira modalni kolaps u modalitetu mogućih svjetova koji istovremeno može negira modalni kolaps unutar avicenovskog modaliteta: Prvo, prigovor modalnog kolapsa temelji se na okviru mogućih svjetova čiji je pojam nužnosti preširok; ovaj okvir ne uspijeva napraviti razliku između Boga kao ontološki nužnog po sebi, stvorenog bića kao nužno ovisnog o drugome i puke logičke nužnosti, kao što to čine Ibn Sina i islamski mislioci. Drugo, argumenti modalnog kolapsa samo pokazuju da je kreacija neophodna kroz drugost, ali ne uspijevaju dokazati da kreacija ima ontološku nužnost ili aseity––što se odnosi samo na Boga; prema tome, ne dolazi do posljedičnog modalnog kolapsa kada nečiji modalitet prepozna kreaciju kao "ovisno nužno biće" unatoč tome što je modalno nužno. Treće, islamski filozofi imaju nelibertarijanski pojam Božje volje i slobode koji je imun na prigovore modalnog kolapsa. Konačno, tvrdim da svi klasični i neoklasični teisti moraju prihvatiti modalno nužnu kreaciju jer libertarijanski modeli Božje volje za sobom povlače neuzrokovane i primitivno kontingentne učinke. (shrink)