The book discusses the structure, content, and evaluation of cosmological arguments. The introductory chapter investigates features essential to cosmological arguments. Traditionally, cosmological arguments are distinguished by their appeal to change, causation, contingency or objective becoming in the world. But none of these is in fact essential to the formulation of cosmological arguments. Chapters 1-3 present a critical discussion of traditional Thomistic, Kalam, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments, noting various advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. Chapter 4 offers an entirely new approach (...) to the cosmological argument - the approach of theistic modal realism. The proper explananda of cosmological arguments on this approach is not change, causation, contingency or objective becoming in the world. The proper explananda is the totality of metaphysical reality - all actualia and all possibilia. The result is the most compelling and least objectionable version of the cosmological argument. (shrink)

God is traditionally taken to be a perfect being, and the creator and sustainer of all that is. So, if theism is true, what sort of world should we expect? To answer this question, we need an account of the array of possible worlds from which God is said to choose. It seems that either there is (a) exactly one best possible world; or (b) more than one unsurpassable world; or (c) an infinite hierarchy of increasingly better worlds. Influential arguments (...) for atheism have been advanced on each hierarchy, and these jointly comprise a daunting trilemma for theism. In this paper, I argue that if theism is true, we should expect the actual world to be a multiverse comprised of all and only those universes which are worthy of creation and sustenance. I further argue that this multiverse is the unique best of all possible worlds. Finally, I explain how his unconventional view bears on the trilemma for theism. (shrink)

The multiverse hypothesis is growing in popularity among theistic philosophers because some view it as the preferable way to solve certain difficulties presented by theistic belief. In this paper, I am concerned specifically with its application to Rowe’s problem of no best world, which suggests that God’s existence is impossible given the fact that the world God actualizes must be unsurpassable, yet for any given possible world, there is one greater. I will argue that, as a solution to the problem (...) of no best world, the multiverse hypothesis fails. To defend my thesis, I will first define the multiverse hypothesis and articulate the problem of no best world and how the multiverse hypothesis is thought to solve it. I will then show that the solution fails by articulating two problems that have been mentioned, but not developed, in the literature—what I call the problem of no highest standard and the problem of multiverse cardinality. In each case, after articulating the problem, I will offer possible responses to the problem and show why those responses are inadequate. (shrink)

Este artigo enfoca a concepção de infinito atual do filósofo judeu medieval Hasdai Crescas, formuladas no livro Or Hashem às três primeiras proposições de Maimônides, tal como são enunciadas na segunda parte do Guia dos Perplexos. As teses de Maimônides têm como objetivo negar a possibilidade do infinito atual como magnitude imaterial ou material, como conjunto infinito de seres finitos e como série infinita de causa e efeito. Após uma breve exposição da trajetória dos conceitos de infinito nas diversas tradições (...) sapienciais judaicas recebidas na Idade Média, indicamos como a argumentação em prol da ideia de infinito atual em Crescas dialoga com elas. Desse diálogo, emerge o conceito de infinito como singularidade atualizada paralelamente no real como vácuo infinito, lugar de coexistência de infinitos universos, e como infinito atual divino como Kavod, Glória, que preenche o universo infinito e como causa imanente da série infinita de causa e efeito que constitui a existência eterna dos seres contingentes. Na crítica à terceira proposição maimonidiana, a causa primeira é descrita como causa ontológica e imanente da série infinita de causas e efeitos. Nessa discussão, Crescas aponta para uma ideia de Deus muito diferente daquela elaborada por Maimônides. Temos aqui o debate judaico medieval entre os defensores da transcendência divina e os defensores da imanência. Esse tema é importante para a compreensão da recepção da obra de Hasdai Crescas por Picco Della Mirandolla, Bruno e Espinosa. (shrink)