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?

Hello Professor Keele, it's an absolute honor to have you here. I am a big fan of your work. I've read that you identify yourself as a Sunni Muslim and that is surprising to me since most of the medieval specializing philosophers that I've heard of are mostly Catholic, especially since you specialise in Chatton and Ockham, and I don't mean that in a negative manner of course.

If this isn't too personal, I would like to ask how did you come to accept the faith of Islam? Was it a philosophical epiphany or perhaps a religious experience? You've mentioned that you specialise in medieval philosophy and you don't limit yourself to Ockham and Chatton which makes me certain that you are familar with a myriad of theologians such as Aquinas and Maimonides as well with their theological arguments and predisposition towards Catholicism and Judaism. This perhaps makes the question of Islam being your religion such a fascinating topic to me. Please feel free not to answer this in case I am intruding too much.

And thank you so much John for this Q and A, I failed to engage with Professor Keele in reddit a few years back. I was already able to learn more about Chatton thanks to the few questions and answers that have been posted here.

Hey John, do you agree with Feser or Bill on this case? Matter of fact, what do you think about his articles on the existence of God in general? i've sort of found Bill's commentary on cosmological arguments quite interesting in regards to how he thinks that we ultimately can't prove or disprove the existence of God, which many here will obviously disagree with (probably myself included). It probably makes sense why he considers himself an ultimist and possibly even a panentheist in light of the recent articles he has posted regarding that topic.

Greg wrote:

A question for those familiar with Kant: At some point I am planning to read Kant's second Critique and then his Metaphysics of Morals (having already read the Groundwork, of course). How essential is it that I read the first Critique before doing this?

It would be helpful. I suggest, if you haven't already, that you start with Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, then move to the first critique. After the first critique, read The Metaphysics of Morals to have a stronger understanding of the second critique.

John West wrote:

884heid wrote:

I thought I was going to be the only one who chooses bare particulars so this is a pleasant surprise.

I voted for thin particulars out of habit. It's no secret that I used to believe in them. I'm, however, not sure these days.

Is there a particular reason for your hesitation towards thin particulars nowadays? Are you perhaps persuaded by the Aristotelian option?