Volume 3, Issue 4 (2023)
jpt 2023, 3(4): 271-291 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Saatchi M. Creation of the Essences in Brian Lefow’s Voluntaristic Modal Metaphysics. jpt 2023; 3 (4) :271-291
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-71594-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-71594-en.html
Islamic Philosophy and Theology Department, Shahid Motahari University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2419 Views)
Theologians believe that the creatures exist based on the activity of the oneness god. But before that, we can ask “Why are creatures possible?”. Brian Leftow has criticized the traditional responses that maintain possible objects are possible due to knowledge of god. God knows the apple, so the apple is possible. It is not a satisfactory response for Leftow, because the essence of God does not need this possibility. Whether the apple is possible or not, God is the God. Also, it seems that the possibility of any creature is necessary. Leftow maintains that this necessity is not written in the essence of God but instead depends on God’s thinking and voluntary creation in his mind. God is the author not just of created reality, but of its vocabulary. This paper explains Leftow’s theory and then criticizes its idea depending on the perfect being theology that Leftow has accepted.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Philosophy of Religion (Analytical)
Received: 2023/09/17 | Accepted: 2023/10/25 | Published: 2023/12/2
Received: 2023/09/17 | Accepted: 2023/10/25 | Published: 2023/12/2
References
1. Almeida M (2014). Review of Brian Leftow, God and necessity. The Philosophical Quarterly. 64(254):152-154. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/pq/pqt028]
2. Bohn ED (2014). Divine contingency. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 6(3):17-23. [Link] [DOI:10.24204/ejpr.v6i3.160]
3. Craig WL (2016). God Over All. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198786887.001.0001]
4. Craig WL (2014). Review: God and necessity by Brian Leftow. Philosophy. 89(1):171-176. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/S0031819113000582]
5. Craig WL (2013). Review: God and necessity by Brian Leftow. Faith and Philosophy. 30(4):462-70. [Link] [DOI:10.5840/faithphil201330442]
6. Davidson M (2013). God and Other Necessary Beings. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Link]
7. Haghshenas H, Samei MA, Entekhabi N (2010). Contemporary culture of the English-Persian millennium. Tehran: Farhange Moaser. [Persian] [Link]
8. Leftow B (2009). Against deity theories. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. 2. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199575442.003.0005]
9. Leftow B (2012). God and necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263356.001.0001]
10. Leftow B (2014). On God and necessity. Faith and Philosophy. 31(4):435-59. [Link] [DOI:10.5840/faithphil201412924]
11. Leftow B (2015). Precis of God and necessity. Analysis Reviews. 75. [Link]
12. McIntosh CA (2014). Review of Brian Leftow, God and necessity. Philosophy in Review. 34(3-4):142-146. [Link]
13. Morris TV, Menzel C (1986). Absolute creation. American Philosophical Quarterly. 23(4):353-62. [Link]
14. Plantinga A (1980). Does God have a nature?. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. [Link]
15. Sabzewari HH (2007). Sharh Al-Manzoomah. Qom: Bidar. [Persian] [Link]
16. Taliaferro C (2003). Contemporary philosophy of religion. In: Rahmati I, translator. Tehran: Suhrawardi. [Persian] [Link]
17. Vander Laan D (2015). The concord of molinism with modal voluntarism. Analysis Reviews. 75(2):259-270. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/analys/anu149]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |