The aloneness argument against classical theism
Religious Studies 58 (2):1-19 (2022)
Abstract
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.Author Profiles
DOI
10.1017/s0034412520000554
My notes
Similar books and articles
Divine hiddenness or de jure objections to theism: You cannot have both.Perry Hendricks - 2021 - Analysis 81 (1):27-32.
Dall’incompatibilismo di Pike all’Open Theism: il dibattito sull’onniscienza divina nella filosofia analitica della religione.Damiano Migliorini - 2014 - Rivista di Filosofia 105:273-288.
The Problem of Alternative Monotheisms: Another Serious Challenge to Theism.Raphael Lataster - 2018 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 10 (1):31-51.
Theism and the Scope of Contingency.Timothy O'Connor - 2008 - Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Religion 1:134-149.
Classical Theism and Pantheism: A Victory for Process Theism?Robert A. Oakes - 1977 - Religious Studies 13 (2):167 - 173.
Did god know it? God’s relation to a world of chance and randomness.Benedikt Paul Göcke - 2015 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 78 (2):233-254.
God and Moral Knowledge.Dustin Crummett & Philip Swenson - 2020 - In Kevin Vallier & Joshua Rasmussen (eds.), A New Theist Response to the New Atheists. New York, USA: Routledge. pp. 33-46.
Idolatry, Indifference, and the Scientific Study of Religion: Two New Humean Arguments.Daniel Linford - 2018 - Religious Studies:1-21.
The parent–child analogy and the limits of skeptical theism.Erik J. Wielenberg - 2015 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 78 (3):301-314.
Classical theism and modal realism are incompatible.Chad Vance - 2016 - Religious Studies 52 (4):561-572.
Classical Theism and Pantheism: a Victory for Process Theism?: ROBERT A. OAKES.Robert A. Oakes - 1977 - Religious Studies 13 (2):167-173.
Analytics
Added to PP
2021-02-12
Downloads
1,429 (#4,259)
6 months
313 (#1,357)
2021-02-12
Downloads
1,429 (#4,259)
6 months
313 (#1,357)
Historical graph of downloads
Author Profiles
Citations of this work
The fruitful death of modal collapse arguments.Joseph C. Schmid - 2022 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 91 (1):3-22.
Simply Unsuccessful: The Neo-Platonic Proof of God’s Existence.Joseph Conrad Schmid - 2022 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 13 (4):129-156.
From Modal Collapse to Providential Collapse.Joseph C. Schmid - 2022 - Philosophia 50 (3):1413-1435.
The aloneness argument: an aspectival response.Joshua R. Sijuwade - 2022 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 91 (3):177-203.
The aloneness argument: an aspectival response.Joshua R. Sijuwade - 2021 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (3):1-27.
References found in this work
On the Plurality of Worlds.David K. Lewis - 1986 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 178 (3):388-390.
Another Look at the Modal Collapse Argument.Omar Fakhri - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 13 (1):1-23.
Simplicity and aseity.Jeffrey E. Brower - 2009 - In Thomas P. Flint & Michael C. Rea (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Oxford University Press. pp. 105-28.