- John West
- Administrator
Offline - Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: Poll: Is the proposition “God exists” true?
What was your solution again? That God has the knowledge, but accidentally and as a relation to things known? (If not, could you restate your response in a way that accounts for the distinctions I've drawn, tell me which premise of Vallicella's argument it's relevant to, and how it's relevant to it?)
I think my point was that since relations can't in any sense relevant to the accidental property argument be “in” God without God's becoming complex, you're already trying to adopt an externalist conception of knowledge.
So what’s the problem?
I didn't get into problems with your specific account, e.g. in what sense can relational properties (res respectivae) that exist wholly outside God (in every sense I know) be God's knowledge?
- John West
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: Poll: Is the proposition “God exists” true?
Because if I have you wrong here, I can’t say anything more, although I should apologize again for that nightmarish term “in God” I offered!
No need to apologize. I didn't make this thread with the intention of discussing the accidental property objection, and so haven't replied as if I had (e.g. my replies have been quite abrupt, mostly on my way out the door).
- •
Thread Starter- John West
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: Poll: Is the proposition “God exists” true?
My impression is, you think my solution implies or requires an externalist epistemology.
It might be worth drawing a quick distinction between intrinsic models of divine knowledge and extrinsic models of divine knowledge. If you hold that variation in God's contingent knowledge across worlds involves variation in items intrinsic to him, you hold an intrinsic model of divine knowledge; if you hold that variation in God's contingent knowledge across worlds doesn't involve variation in items intrinsic to him, you hold an extrinsic model of divine knowledge. (One that involves variation in only items extrinsic to him.) I've so far followed Vallicella in calling "extrinsic" models of divine knowledge “external”, but your quote suggests that may be causing unnecessary confusion.
- •
Thread Starter- 884heid
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/09/2016
- Posts: 64
Re: Poll: Is the proposition “God exists” true?
Pruss, if I recall correctly had a reply to the Accidental property objection but I think that it required partial externalism to formulate it. I know that you will probably create a thread at some point to into depth of this topic but as a quick question, do you reject externalism for the reasons of the controversy surrounding divine simplicity being ultimately compatible with External knowledge or do you reject it in general like Vallicella?
Another question and I am certainly sure that it is incorrect but regarding immutability, can't we say that God created this perfect world out of moral necessity but without invoking absolute necessity of Spinoza since it was his choice? So the mere possibility of other worlds not being actualized doesn't necessitate the idea of them ever coming to fruition despite infinite possible worlds existing. Or does this still not avoid modal collapse? I know Vallicella doesn't require possible world semantics to pass his argument, I was just interested in the accidental property objection argument that you posed a while back with possible worlds. And also, doesn't Feser reject the idea that God exists metaphysically in all worlds?
- John West
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: Poll: Is the proposition “God exists” true?
884heid wrote:
Pruss, if I recall correctly had a reply to the Accidental property objection but I think that it required partial externalism to formulate it.
Pruss tries to solve the problem with an extrinsic model of divine knowledge in a brief section of one of his papers.
I know that you will probably create a thread at some point to into depth of this topic but as a quick question, do you reject externalism for the reasons of the controversy surrounding divine simplicity being ultimately compatible with External knowledge or do you reject it in general like Vallicella?
Both. I have problems with extrinsic models of knowledge in general and arguments against the specific extrinsic models of divine knowledge I've seen.
I leave you to ponder the rest yourself. I have fish to catch.
- •
Thread Starter- 884heid
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/09/2016
- Posts: 64
Re: Poll: Is the proposition “God exists” true?
Pruss, if I recall correctly had a reply to the Accidental property objection but I think that it required partial externalism to formulate it.
Pruss tries to solve the problem with an extrinsic model of divine knowledge in a brief section of one of his papers.
I know that you will probably create a thread at some point to into depth of this topic but as a quick question, do you reject externalism for the reasons of the controversy surrounding divine simplicity being ultimately compatible with External knowledge or do you reject it in general like Vallicella?
Both. I have problems with extrinsic models of knowledge in general and arguments against the specific extrinsic models of divine knowledge I've seen.
I leave you to ponder the rest yourself. I have fish to catch.
I think I kind have gotten it. The position of God creating the best possible world out of moral necessity isn't necessarily the position of classical theists since Aquinas would probably reject it despite making the distinction between Absolute necessity and necessity per accidens. And the possible world semantics can still be construed in the manner that an accidental property objection would entail since the limitation of God's ability to choose anything is contrary to what classical theists believe. If this is the only world he could created even out of moral necessity, it still doesn't escape modal collapse due to an almost identical resemblance to the necessitarian conclusion. Although Martin Lin would probably disagree with me.
Anyway, I wish I could be fishing right now, but I will have to settle for meditation. Enjoy your fishing John and stay safe.