Rough draft.
Among the many objections William Lane Craig raises against theistic conceptualism, one is that it entails that God must entertain just the thoughts he does (to ground abstracta, including possible worlds), and to think them constantly, which seems to restrict God's freedom and sovereignty. Here I want to raise another problem for theistic conceptualism that stems from Craig's. The core of the problem has to do with the ground of the "must" in Craig's objection. In particular, it appears to be a modal fact that falls outside the scope of God's intellectual activity. But if one modal fact isn't accounted for by divine intellectual activity, why think any are? Theistic conceptualism therefore looks unmotivated.
No comments:
Post a Comment