Modal collapse is a phantom problem. That’s because you define a modal collapse is a late framework of modality but when you go back to Ibn Sina modal system, what you call modal collapse is no longer an issue
KhalilAndani
No, because substitution doesn’t hold. The context is modal and thus non-extensional.
joeschulz
1. If something exists, it exists, necessarily.
2. Your sunglasses exist.
3. Your sunglasses exist, necessarily.
ryanremembers
I’m somewhat new to this I admit but I think you’re critiquing process theism. Divine simplicity specifically seeks to avoid modalism as I understand it.
GaryBiders
That is one of the worst arguments against classical theism I've heard.
czgiomn
Well, I this world is, in a sense neccessary. God's knowledge is neccessary. God's creation is neccessary, since He must will the divine essence, since His infinite Goodness. Also free will means for Classical Theists, that one can choose the Good, God has Free will, but since Divine Simplicity, Him willing the Good is simply just being himself. So yes, divine simplicity does lead to in a sense, modal collapse but it doesn't matter.
kornelszecsi
I cannot believe I have to say this out loud, but… oh god, here goes… Craig did this better 🤮. Omg, I said it, 🤮, I sided with Craig 🤮🤮🤮
