This volume announces a new era in the philosophy of God. Many of its contributions work to create stronger links between the philosophy of God, on the one hand, and mathematics or metamathematics, on the other hand. It is about not only the possibilities of applying mathematics or metamathematics to questions about God, but also the reverse question: Does the philosophy of God have anything to offer mathematics or metamathematics? The remaining contributions tackle stereotypes in the philosophy of religion. The (...) volume includes 35 contributions. It is divided into nine parts: 1. Who Created the Concept of God; 2. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Timelessness and Spacelessness of God; 3. God and Perfect Goodness, Perfect Beauty, Perfect Freedom; 4. God, Fundamentality and Creation of All Else; 5. Simplicity and Ineffability of God; 6. God, Necessity and Abstract Objects; 7. God, Infinity, and Pascal's Wager; 8. God and (Meta-)Mathematics; and 9. God and Mind. (shrink)

Necessitism is the controversial thesis that necessarily everything is necessarily something, namely that everything, everywhere, necessarily exists. What is controversial about necessitism is that, at its core, it claims that things could not have failed to exist, while we have a pre-theoretical intuition that not everything necessarily exists. Contingentism, in accordance with common sense, denies necessitism: it claims that some things could have failed to exist. Timothy Williamson is a necessitist and claims that David Lewis is a necessitist too. The (...) paper argues that, granted the assumptions that lead to interpret the Lewisian as a necessitist, she can preserve contingentist intuitions, by genuinely agreeing with the folk that existence is contingent. This is not just the uncontroversial claim that the Lewisian, as a result of the prevalence of restricted quantification in counterpart theoretic regimentations of natural language, can agree with the folk while disagreeing with them in the metaphysical room. Rather, this is the claim that it is in the metaphysical room that the Lewisian can endorse the intuitions lying behind contingentism. (shrink)

The Lewisian account of modality based on counterpart theory suffers from the problems of advanced modalizing, where claims about spatiotemporally disunified entities are modalized. In this paper, I first discuss a strategy to bypass the problem, one which treats cases of advanced modalizing as cases of equivocation lying outside the scope of the translation. I then argue that the strategy does not satisfactorily generalize to the case of advanced modal claims involving abstract entities. This failure not only reveals the limitations (...) of counterpart theory in handling abstracta, but also weakens the abductive argument for modal realism that posits it as a robust account of nominalism. Furthermore, advanced modalizing is an indispensable part of the Lewisian framework when doing metaphysics, since advanced modal claims made by Lewis himself strengthen his abductive argument for modal realism. Hence advanced modalizing plays a crucial role in the Lewisian project, and an account of advanced modalizing is needed for the Lewisian reduction of modality to succeed. (shrink)