Online research in philosophy

1. Peter van Inwagen, What is the Problem of the Hiddenness of God? 2. J.L. Schellenberg, What the Hiddenness of God Reveals: A Collaborative Discussion 3. Michael J. Murray, Deus Absconditus 4. Laura L. Garcia, St. John of the Cross and the Necessity of Divine Hiddenness 5. William J. Wainwright, Jonathan Edwards and the Hiddenness of God 6. Paul K. Moser, Divine Hiding and Cognitive Idolatry 7. Jonathan L. Kvanvig, Divine Hiddenness: What is the Problem? 8. M. Jamie Ferreira, A Kierkegaardian View of Divine Hiddenness 9. Jacob Joshua Ross, The Hiddenness of God: A Puzzle or a Real Problem? 10. Paul Draper, Seeking But Not Believing: Confessions of a Practicing Agnostic 11. Nicholas Wolterstorff, The Silence of the God Who Speaks..

The simplest Divine Command Theory is one which identifies rightness with being commanded or willed by God. Two clear and appealing arguments for this theory turn on the idea that laws require a lawgiver, and the idea that God is sovereign or omnipotent. Critical examination of these arguments reveals some fundamental principles at odds with the Divine Command Theory, and yields some more penetrating versions of traditional objections to that theory.

The focus of this paper is the social trinitarian account in Richard Swinburne's "The Christian God." After setting out the route Swinburne follows in reaching his conclusions about the Godhead, I endeavour to show two things: (i) that his account does not avoid the charge of tritheism and thus is not faithful to key elements in the Christian creeds; (ii) the philosophical moves behind his conclusions are not compelling if, as we can, we challenge his assumptions about divine necessity. A better account of divine necessity takes us away from Swinburne's version of trinitarianism/tritheism.

Quentin Smith has argued that it is logically impossible for there to be a divine cause of the universe. His argument is based on a Humean analysis of causation (confined to event causation, specifically excluding any consideration of agency) and a principle drawn from that analysis that he takes to be a logical requirement for every possibly valid theory of causation. He also thinks that all divine volitions are efficacious of logical necessity. We argue that all of these claims are faulty, and that theists can resist Smith’s arguments without merely begging the question in favor of a divine cause.

It is argued that Calvin does not veer between two incompatible accounts of grace, freedom and necessity in "Institutes II". 2, but presents a consistent position. The consistency is evident once it is seen that Calvin carefully distinguished between necessity and compulsion. For him not all necessitated acts are compelled, but all human acts which are the outcome of efficacious divine grace are necessitated by that grace. Because Calvin is consistent, there is no need to suppose that he has mistaken the causal sufficiency of divine saving grace for its causal importance.