I am ecstatic to announce that my article, “The fruitful death of modal collapse arguments”, has been accepted for publication in the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Here’s the pre-print version.
Before ending this short blog post, I wanna do two things. First, I want to direct you to the greatest [i.e., most systematic, up-to-date, cutting-edge and scholarly] resource currently in existence on modal collapse arguments against classical theism. Or, at least, it’s the greatest in my extremely unbiased opinion. 😉 This resource is my video here [“Arguments Against Classical Theism | Part 1/3”], wherein I discuss over 15 different modal collapse objections to classical theism for three hours, beginning from 1:17:06 and through 4:10:43. I criticize at least 3 of these modal collapse arguments but defend the rest.
Included in the presentation are novel modal collapse arguments developed nowhere else. To give you a taste, here’s one such argument:
TSB also provides an illuminating and powerful explanation of the difference between ontological and ideological differences between theories (cf. Koons and Pickavance (ibid)), and it also allows us to catch metaphysical cheaters (à la Merricks).
So, I take it that TSB is true. But how is this trouble for classical theism?
Again, check out the citations at the bottom of this post if you’re curious.