Abstract
AbstractThe classical conception of God is that of a necessary being. On a possible worlds semantics, this entails that God exists at every possible world. According to the modal realist account of David Lewis, possible worlds are understood to be real, concrete worlds – no different in kind from the actual world. But, modal realism is equipped to accommodate the existence of a necessary being in only one of three ways: (1) By way of counterpart theory, or (2) by way of a special case of trans-world identity for causally inert necessary beings (e.g. pure sets), or else (3) causally potent ones which lack accidental intrinsic properties. I argue that each of these three options entails unacceptable consequences – (1) and (2) are incompatible with theism, and (3) is incompatible with modal realism. I conclude that (at least) one of these views is false.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Philosophy,Religious studies
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Atheistic modal realism;Religious Studies;2022-10-24
2. Necessary Suffering and Lewisian Theism;Sophia;2021-03-09
3. Theistic modal realism and causal modal collapse;Religious Studies;2020-07-24
4. God’s place in the world;International Journal for Philosophy of Religion;2020-05-18
5. Satisfaction and restoration of the world;Religious Studies;2019-09-18