Religious Studies (2):1-17 (2013)

Mark Ian Thomas Robson
Durham University (PhD)
In this article I reply to Jon Robson's objections to my argument that God does not contain any possible worlds. I had argued that ugly possible worlds clearly compromise God's beauty. Robson argues that I failed to show that possible worlds can be subject to aesthetic evaluation, and that even if they were it could be the case that ugliness might contribute to God's overall beauty. In reply I try to show that possible worlds are aesthetically evaluable by arguing that possible worlds are maximally rich representations of possible events. I further argue that nothing in God's being can be aesthetically non-evaluable since God must be maximal beauty – a beauteous maximality which needs no ugliness. Finally I show in what sense Christ's heavenly scars can be beautiful
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2014
DOI 10.1017/S0034412513000334
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Categories of Art.Kendall L. Walton - 1970 - Philosophical Review 79 (3):334-367.
Possible Worlds and the Beauty of God.Mark Ian Thomas Robson - 2011 - Religious Studies 47 (4):479-492.
Critique of Judgement.James Creed Meredith (ed.) - 2008 - Oxford University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
331 ( #23,647 of 2,409,423 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #45,380 of 2,409,423 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes