On the Maximality of Positive Properties and Modal Collapse in Variants of Gödel’s Ontological Proof for the Existence of God

Rethinking the Ontological Argument: a Neoclassical Theistic Response. By Daniel A. Dombrowski

This article investigates the proof of God’s existence within Ibn Sīnā’s metaphysical framework, particularly addressing the concepts of divine simplicity and the problem of modal collapse. It commences by positioning Ibn Sīnā’s metaphysics in contrast to Aristotle’s, emphasizing the dynamic and evolutionary nature of Ibn Sīnā’s engagement with metaphysical inquiry. The article highlights Ibn Sīnā’s distinctiveness in redefining metaphysical exploration beyond physicalist presuppositions and establishing metaphysics as foundational for other scientific disciplines. Central to this exploration is the elucidation of Ibn Sīnā’s arguments for God’s existence, primarily through his concept of modality—encompassing the necessary, contingent, and impossible—and his unique argument known as The Proof of the Sincere (Burhān al-Siddiqīn). These arguments demonstrate Ibn Sīnā’s belief in the necessity of a being whose existence and essence are identical, countering Kantian critiques by emphasizing an ontological foundation rather than rational judgments alone. However, the assertion of the identity of existence and essence in the Necessary Being introduces the issue of divine simplicity and the potential for modal collapse—a challenge whereby distinctions between possible states of affairs are nullified. The article proposes that Ibn Sīnā’s distinction between general and special existence, alongside his theory of tashkīk al-wujūd (gradation of existence), offers avenues to navigate this philosophical challenge. Additionally, it suggests that Frege’s distinction between meaning and reference could further elucidate the discussion. The conclusion posits that while Ibn Sīnā’s arguments for God’s existence exhibit significant persuasive power, they also prompt further inquiries into divine simplicity and modal collapse. The exploration of these themes underscores the relevance of Ibn Sīnā’s metaphysical contributions to contemporary philosophical debates, advocating for a nuanced understanding of his work beyond traditional Aristotelian or Cartesian interpretations.

This paper responds to the modal collapse argument against divine simplicity or classical theism offered by neo-classical or complex theists. The modal collapse argument claims that if God is both absolutely simple and absolutely necessary, then God’s act of creation is absolutely necessary, and therefore, the existence of the created world is also absolutely necessary. This means that God and His creation collapse into a single modal category of absolute necessity without any contingent beings. My response is grounded in the Islamic Neoplatonic philosophy of Ibn Sina and the Ismaili tradition. I offer four arguments that allow a Muslim Neoplatonist to absorb a modal collapse in a possible worlds modality while negating modal collapse within an Avicennian modality: First, the modal collapse objection is based on a possible worlds framework whose concept of necessity is overly broad; this framework fails to distinguish between God as ontologically necessary in Himself, created being as dependently necessary through another, and mere logical necessity, all of which are recognized by Ibn Sina and Islamic thinkers. Second, modal collapse arguments only demonstrate that creation is necessary through another but fails to prove that creation has ontological necessity or aseity––which only pertains to God; thus, no consequential modal collapse ensues when one’s modality recognizes creation as a “dependent necessary being” despite being modally necessary. Third, Islamic philosophers have a non- libertarian concept of God’s will and freedom that is immune to modal collapse objections. Finally, I argue that all classical and neo-classical theists must embrace a modally necessary creation because libertarian models of God’s will entail uncaused and brutely contingent effects.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is a German philosopher who provides a comprehensive argument about the existence of God. Although Leibniz has made a mistake in thinking about God, the evidence of God’s presence offered by him gives us an example and a strength to deepen our faith: Leibniz’s courage is to increase his confidence and his power to maintain God's existence. The arguments presented by Leibniz are very relevant to the concept of God in Hinduism. It also seems that with evidence of harmony that had already been built before, Leibniz fell into the trap of atheism implicitly because it denied the existence of a personal God and only relied on internal law. Regarding the harmony that had already been built before, Leibniz explained that civil laws were working in monade. Monade are predetermined natures, which result in having one characteristic that governs everything. But the best is that not only for the whole in general but also for individuals, especially individuals who have a love for God.

Anthony Kenny asserted that none of the traditional arguments regarding the existence of God can be taken as evidence and that the traditional concept of God is inconsistent in every case. Kenny, who identifies himself as agnostic, believes that it’s not possible to know the existence of God. However, he also dismisses the claims which state that it’s possible to know the non-existence of God. On the other hand, asserting that it’s impossible to know the God, Kenny thinks that the concept of God is the single greatest creation of human imagination and for this reason alone is enough for humans not to be indifferent to this concept. Moreover, he states that although the existence or absence of God cannot be known, belief in God is a rational belief. Kenny's basic assertions are that the arguments put forward to claim knowing God are not persuasive and that it is a mistake to acknowledge agnosticism as a diluted form of atheism. Furthermore, according to him, since neither theists nor atheists can prove their claims, agnosticism is the most rational approach. Kenny, who considers that talking to God must remain metaphorical, states that anthropomorphism also has its own limits and it can only be applied up to a certain point.

Karo people believe in the existence of Dibata Kaci-kaci (“God”). The understanding and belief about Dibata is obtained through life experiences, natural phenomena, and events experienced. The orientation of this research is to find the transformation of belief in Dibata as the concept of God for Karo Catholics. The research method used is qualitative, with interview techniques based on experiences derived from oral traditions, group discussion forums, and documentation. Research informants: five traditional leaders, two Karo culturalists, two priests, and five pastoral councils of parishes and stations. This research uses Rudolf Otto's (1917) theory of religious phenomenology to understand the experience and understanding of the sacred or numinous. This theory helps explain how Karo people experience and understand God's presence through natural phenomena and life events. The findings of this study are in line with previous research by Singarimbun (1975) and Ginting (2018), which also examined the concept of God in Karo beliefs. However, this study provides a new perspective by exploring the transformation of the concept in the context of Karo Catholics. The novelty of this research lies in finding the intersection between the experience and understanding of God in the beliefs of the Karo people and the concept of the Trinity in the teachings of the Catholic Church. The results show that the Karo people recognize, acknowledge, and believe in the existence of a God who is both transcendent and immanent, namely Dibata Datas (God Above), Dibata Tengah (God Middle), and Dibata Teruh (God Below). The experience and understanding of God in the Karo people's beliefs find common ground, thus becoming an opportunity for evangelization. The concept of the Karo God as a God with three persons (Dibata si Telu Sada) reveals the Karo belief that Dibata is present in all realities: the upper world, the middle world, and the lower world. For example, Karo: Mula jadi (creator, origin), Dibata Kaci kaci (loving God), Nini (grandfather). This finding is a new idea that can be used as catechetical material about the Trinity that the Catholic Church believes in.

The question of whether we can know that God exists simply by thinking about it has been explored by various philosophers throughout history. Let�s examine the ideas of Plato, Saint Augustine of Hippo, Saint Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, and Lucian Blaga on this topic. Plato�s philosophy centered around the idea of forms or ideal concepts. While he did not explicitly argue for the existence of a monotheistic God, he believed in a transcendent realm of perfect forms that served as the ultimate source of reality. According to Plato, through philosophical contemplation and reason, one could gain knowledge of these forms, including the form of the good, which could be equated with a divine or godlike entity. Saint Augustine of Hippo sought to reconcile faith and reason and believed that rational inquiry could lead to knowledge of God�s existence. He argued that God�s existence could be known through introspection and reflection on one�s own existence. Augustine believed that God�s existence is self-evident and that every thought we have depends on the existence of a supreme, unchanging and eternal being. Saint Anselm proposed the ontological argument for the existence of God. He argued that we can conceive of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. According to Anselm, if such a being exists in the understanding alone, it could also exist in reality, which is even greater. Therefore, God must exist in reality. Anselm�s argument relies on the idea that the concept of God contains the concept of necessary existence. Thomas Aquinas developed the cosmological argument, which asserts that everything in the universe has a cause, and ultimately there must be an uncaused cause (God) that initiates the chain of causes. Aquinas believed that reason could lead us to knowledge of God�s existence through observation of the natural world and logical deduction. He believed that God�s existence is self-evident and can be understood through natural theology. Rene Descartes known for his phrase �I think, therefore I am,� sought to establish a foundation of knowledge through rational inquiry. While his philosophical project primarily focused on skepticism and the existence of the self, Descartes also argued for the existence of God. He posited that the idea of God, as a perfect and infinite being, could not have originated from himself, a finite and imperfect being. Therefore, he concluded that the idea of God must have been implanted by a higher power, namely God himself. Lucian Blaga, a Romanian philosopher, addressed the problem of God�s existence from a phenomenological perspective. He argued that God�s existence is not a factual truth that can be proven or disproven by rational thought alone. Instead, Blaga emphasized the importance of subjective experience and existential intuition in recognizing the presence of God. For Blaga, the experience of the sacred and the encounter with the numinous in human existence provides a profound sense of meaning and transcendence, which suggests the existence of God. In summary, the philosophers mentioned above offer different perspectives on whether we can know that God exists simply by thinking about it. While some argue for rational proofs like the ontological or cosmological arguments, others emphasize the importance of personal experience, intuition, introspection or the recognition of higher realities, but the question of God�s existence remains a deeply complex and multifaceted topic, with different philosophical approaches yielding different conclusions, a complex and deeply personal matter, with differing viewpoints among philosophers and individuals.

The question of whether we can know that God exists simply by thinking about it has been explored by various philosophers throughout history. Let�s examine the ideas of Plato, Saint Augustine of Hippo, Saint Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, and Lucian Blaga on this topic. Plato�s philosophy centered around the idea of forms or ideal concepts. While he did not explicitly argue for the existence of a monotheistic God, he believed in a transcendent realm of perfect forms that served as the ultimate source of reality. According to Plato, through philosophical contemplation and reason, one could gain knowledge of these forms, including the form of the good, which could be equated with a divine or godlike entity. Saint Augustine of Hippo sought to reconcile faith and reason and believed that rational inquiry could lead to knowledge of God�s existence. He argued that God�s existence could be known through introspection and reflection on one�s own existence. Augustine believed that God�s existence is self-evident and that every thought we have depends on the existence of a supreme, unchanging and eternal being. Saint Anselm proposed the ontological argument for the existence of God. He argued that we can conceive of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. According to Anselm, if such a being exists in the understanding alone, it could also exist in reality, which is even greater. Therefore, God must exist in reality. Anselm�s argument relies on the idea that the concept of God contains the concept of necessary existence. Thomas Aquinas developed the cosmological argument, which asserts that everything in the universe has a cause, and ultimately there must be an uncaused cause (God) that initiates the chain of causes. Aquinas believed that reason could lead us to knowledge of God�s existence through observation of the natural world and logical deduction. He believed that God�s existence is self-evident and can be understood through natural theology. Rene Descartes known for his phrase �I think, therefore I am,� sought to establish a foundation of knowledge through rational inquiry. While his philosophical project primarily focused on skepticism and the existence of the self, Descartes also argued for the existence of God. He posited that the idea of God, as a perfect and infinite being, could not have originated from himself, a finite and imperfect being. Therefore, he concluded that the idea of God must have been implanted by a higher power, namely God himself. Lucian Blaga, a Romanian philosopher, addressed the problem of God�s existence from a phenomenological perspective. He argued that God�s existence is not a factual truth that can be proven or disproven by rational thought alone. Instead, Blaga emphasized the importance of subjective experience and existential intuition in recognizing the presence of God. For Blaga, the experience of the sacred and the encounter with the numinous in human existence provides a profound sense of meaning and transcendence, which suggests the existence of God. In summary, the philosophers mentioned above offer different perspectives on whether we can know that God exists simply by thinking about it. While some argue for rational proofs like the ontological or cosmological arguments, others emphasize the importance of personal experience, intuition, introspection or the recognition of higher realities, but the question of God�s existence remains a deeply complex and multifaceted topic, with different philosophical approaches yielding different conclusions, a complex and deeply personal matter, with differing viewpoints among philosophers and individuals.

Children at elementary schools have been able to develop their logical thinking and the ability to understand symbols and fundamental principles, yet still in a concrete fashion. Religion, however, introduces the concept of God, which is quite an abstract concept. Therefore, a learning method that can help children to develop their understanding of God is required. This research aimed to identify the conception of God on children enrolled in Integrated Islamic schools (SIT). The study used qualitative method with the indigenous psychology approach. The study collected data from 200 students at Grade Six from Integrated Islamic elementary schools in Pekanbaru. The data was processed using thematic analysis based on the conception of God in Islamic tradition. The results showed that the majority of the respondents (97.73%) described their conception of God with their understanding of God as the Creator ( tawhid al-rububiyya) involving the perfection of God, the willfulness of God, and the existence of God. The implementation of the understanding of God in daily life ( tawhid al-uluhiyya) is then applied through prayers, compliance to religious rules, and submission toward God’s commands. These results suggest that respondents comprehend the concept of God and implement such understanding through their daily activities

BOOK REVIEWS 499 process. It was, in fact, the belief in God and the soul which Buddhism so vehemently argued against in its early days. The attribution of a transcendent dimension to Buddhism is not the only thing which proves so fatal to de Silva's argument, however, but the overvalued ethico-social dimension as well. To be sure, the communal element is there in both traditions , but to argue that anattii, for instance, is an ethical concept or that the goal of early Buddhism was a communal eschaton with primarily social implications is to recast the original material into unrecognizable form. While de Silva's book is a thought-provoking introduction to BuddhistChristian conversation, its reworking of the original material is on most accounts inauthentic. ELLISON FINDLAY Trinity College Hartford, Connecticut God Beyond Knowledge. By ARTHUR HERBERT HODGES. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1979. Pp. xii + 181. $22.50. In his posthumously published God Beyond Knowledge, Herbert Arthur Hodges (1905-1976), late Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading, undertakes to examine the origin of the ' God ' concept, to explore the standard several dimensions of man's reputed knowledge of God, and, perhaps most importantly, to answer the question of our ability to know Him metaphysically. Although this position is not always argued consistently, the author's conclusion about natural theology is basically negative. Given Hodges's presumably early exposure to the British Empirical tradition and his ready acceptance (albeit a pragmatic one) of the scientific model of knowledge, this conclusion would not be surprising except for the fact that Hodges himself was a devout Anglo-Catholic, a lay theologian, and the author of several apologetic works on the Christian religion. Consequently, while he will employ the traditional philosophical concept of God throughout much of the discussion in this book and even make use at times of the Thomistic doctrine of analogy, ostensibley to counter religious anthropomorphism and agnosticism, his true philosophical position finally unmasked is a form of Pyrrhonian scepticism. Consistent with this scepticism, he will embrace Hume's analysis of cause and thus deny the possibility of any a posteriori proof of God's existence. For Hodges, then, one's acceptance of God's existence and of a particular religious creed are both equally choices of the will-the standard Protestant view-not intellectual assents with a foundation in reason. In reviewing this book I will focus upon those chapters in which philosophical material particularly is dominant. In describing the origin of the' God' concept (Chapter 5, "The Genesis 500 BOOK REVIEWS of ' God ' ") Hodges seems primarily concerned with the one prevalent in Western philosophy and theology and in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, although he sees his remarks as applying, mutatis mutandis, to Hinduism as well. This concept, according to Hodges, is that of an "All-Agent" and arises because we tend to view being as essentially connected with activity or agency and to think that the mind-unified reality we call " the world " depends upon a superior being. Why we think it is (1) caused by a single (2) Personal Agent (3) Who transcends finitude Hodges explains respectively through our desire for a unity of pattern or design, our recognition of the perfection of person, and our impatience with limitations and consequent need to find the absolute realized. Thus, " We form the concept of God as being which is wholly self-sufficient and whose activities amount to nothing less than creating and sustaining all that is. God, so conceived, is being in an unqualified sense. He is not something as distinct from something else-that would be limitation-he is without qualification, he is That Which Is, ipsum esse subsistens" (p. 54). Yet Hodges recognizes that such a concept must also be supported by proof of God's existence if it is not to be only a fantasy, "valuable perhaps as poetry or drama but still not a cognition of reality." Consequently, he finds it necessary to re-examine, " but in the light of the present situation," the traditional natural theology's arguments for God's existence. In Chapter 6 (" Metaphysical Arguments for God's Existence ") Hodges considers four traditional arguments for God's existence (to the...

KNOWING PERSONS AND KNOWING GOD I AM GOING TO propose an account of affirming God's existence which runs counter to a prominent trend in recent philosophy of religion, a trend which defends the meaningfulness of theism by either giving up the concept of God's existence as a category mistake or defining it in terms of the practical value the idea has for religious life. Such defenses are reductionist. They reduce the meaning of ' God exists ' to its functions within what they variously call ' religious language,' the ' religious language game,' or the ' religious form of life.' 1 I, too, want to defend theistic thought and life, but I do not believe that the reductionist defenses work.2 In another paper,3 1 I have in mind especially the following: R. B. Braithwaite, "An Empiricist's View of the Nature of Religious Belief," The Philosophy of Religion, ed. Basil Mitchell (Oxford, 1971), 72-91. Paul Holmer, "Language and Theology: Some Critical Notes," Harvard Theological Review, LVIII, S (July, 1965), 242-261; "The Nature of Religious Propositions," Religious Language and the Problem of Religious Knowledge, ed. Ronald E. Santoni (Bloomington, 1968); " Wittgenstein and Theology," Refiection, Vol. 65, 4 (1968). Gordon Kaufman, God the Problem (Cambridge, Mass., 1972). See especially chapter 5. D. Z. Phillips, The Concept of Prayer (London, 1965); Faith and Philosophical Enquiry (New York, 1971). P. F. Schmidt, Religious Knowledge (New York, 1961). Elmer Sprague, Metaphysical Thinking (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978). Paul van Buren, The Edges of Language: An Essay in the Logic of Religion (New York, 1972); "Anselm's Formula and the Logic of God," Religious Studies, vol. 9 (1973), 279-288. 2 Many have said as much, but few have argued the case. Kai Nielsen is a notable exception. See his "Wittgensteinian Fideism," Philosophy, Vol. 42 (1967). More frequently one encounters an off-handed rejection of reductionism, as in Patrick Sherry's Religion, Truth, and Language Games (London, 1977) where he notes that "... it often seems as if Phillips is reducing God to a concept or to some 394 KNOWING PERSONS AND KNOWING GOD 395 I argued that while claiming to leave the practice of theistic religion as it is, reductionist views would, when integrated into believers' lives, lead to so fundamental a change in religious life that instead of defending they would undermine or, as Ninian Smart put it, cause a " colossal revolution " in faith.4 Be that as it may, I also believe that the reductionist defenses of the uses and meaning of religious language do not take their analytic and phenomenological task sufficiently seriously when it comes to the meaning of affirming God's existence. They attend to other functions of religious language without examining the sense affirming God's existence actually has in the practice of theistic faith. They view religions as complex forms of life organized by peculiar language systems, conceptual schemes, or models which perform practical functions for believers. We have learned much from the concern with the uses of religious language, but the question about God's existence persists. In this paper I shall argue that affirming God's existence is a necessary part of theistic religion and that the affirmation follows the logic of the most certain affirmation of existence we make, viz. affirmations of the existence of human individuals or persons. That being so, if it is rational to affirm the existence of persons, it is rational to affirm the existence of God. In order thus to support the rationality of affirming God's existence, I will develop four main theses: (1) that practicing theistic religion presupposes the idea of God as a personal or suprapersonal individual; (2) that the actual practice of theism involves affirming the existence of God in a sense of existence appropriate to such finite individuals as human persons; (3) that affirming the existence of human persons takes place through an act which attributes intentions and values to something encountered in action; (4) that affirming God's existence follows the same logic as affirming the existence of persons. aspect of the world. . . ." (p. 53) . See also Ninian Smart in The Cncept of Worship (New York, 197!'l). 3 "Theistic Reductionism and the...

Patrick Kiaran Dooley says that [r]eligious philosophy . . . primarily concerned with the existence and nature of God and only secondarily with the difference in God makes in man's life. Dooley continues to explain that William James is concerned with the nature and function of in God and the difference that makes. 3 According to James, religious philosophy considers three questions: the nature and legitimacy of belief; the effect of belief; and the existence and nature of the object of James deals with these questions separately in his various works. Albert Camus not interested in entering into a debate over the nature and existence of God. He is, however, very interested in the legitimacy and effect of in a particular concept of God (the traditional Christian concept). Camus agrees with James that belief measured by action, 5 and a choice. That is, we can know what we really believe, as well as what others really believe by considering whether our actions (or the actions of others) are consistent with our (their) claims. In The Myth of Sisyphus Camus repeatedly associates with action. In addition, Camus provides a method for choosing what we can legitimately believe (or what we will choose to believe, regardless of the logic behind the belief). Camus lays out exactly what required of a if it really a belief. For example, Camus says, [i]t probably true that a man remains forever unknown to us

This article examines Baruch Benedictus Spinoza conceptual understanding of the proofs for the existence of God. It traces the evolution of this theme pursuant to the metaphysical studies of Moderns Philosophy. Тhe concept of God the philosophy of Spinoza is considered by exploring the nature of the relations between the transcendent sphere of God and the spiritual world of the human person. Spinoza argues from the possibility of God's existence to God's necessary existence. God is an absolutely infinite substance, necessarily exists, qua Natura Naturans is immutable. God or Nature. The universe is an expression of God's nature, qua Natura Naturata - God is its immanent cause. Spinoza's God is synonymous with Nature. Substance is defined as in itself. Spinoza understands a substance to be something that is self-caused and self-explained. The transcendence is understood as an ontological category, being discussed connection with the key themes of Christian philosophy (Anry Bergson, Moris Blondel and Wladimir Soloviev), such as time and eternity, person and history, creation and God etc. Spinoza's concept of God is referring to the God of the monotheistic religions, God as One Substance, pertains to a concept of the oneness of God, is transcendent and therefore unknowable. Spinoza's definition of God found on the first page of the Ethics: Being absolutely infinite. From the point of view of historiography, the role of the book Ehtics by Spinoza is highlighted.

4 - What Is God?

In the continuing dialogue between Western philosophy and the Christian religion, the central issue has generally been the existence of God. There has however been a discernible shift in the focus of the discussion in recent years. Rather than the existence of God, the issue now seems to be the concept of God. It is increasingly argued by philosophers critical of religion that the concept of God is basically incoherent, and that therefore the question of God's existence or non-existence does not even arise. What cannot be conceived is not even a possible object of faith.