Response to Rooney on Existential Inertia

Recently, Patrick Rooney has argued that neither external relations nor their relata can have existential inertia. Many thanks to Rooney for his engagement, and I will reciprocate that engagement as I respond to his case in this post.

Neo-Lorentzianism and Big Bang Cosmology

This is a guest post by Dr. Daniel Linford. You can find Dr. Linford’s PhilPeople profile here.

---

“The mind seemed to grow giddy by looking so far into the abyss of time; and while we listened with earnestness and admiration to the philosopher who was now unfolding to us the order and series of these wonderful events, we became sensible how much farther reason may sometimes go than imagination can venture to follow.”

John Playfair, 1797, Biographical Account of James Hutton, p. 35

Bad arguments about divine simplicity and uniqueness

I was recently reading Feser’s contribution to the new Routledge collection on classical theism, and Feser is still parroting his old assertion — and it is only an assertion — that denying DDS entails the possibility of polytheism. Because this assertion is obviously false, I wanted to dispel with it in this post.

A quick clarification on Section 8.2.1 of Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs

Hey all! This is just a quick clarification on Sect. 8.2.1 (Timelessness) in Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs. This section is in the chapter on the second stage of the Aristotelian proof. The section focuses in particular on Feser’s inference to timelessness. Originally, the section reads like this:

However, I think the wording here is confusing. It makes more sense when we replace two instances of ‘timelessness’ with ‘immutability’. That’s how the dilemma should be construed. So, below, I’ve given a better version of the section. I’ve bolded the two changes:

Similarly, this clarification also applies to our short summary of this section on p. 368 in Sect. 12.2.2.2. Originally, that summary was as follows:

But the summary should be changed to the following:

It’s a small change, yes, but I wanted to note it nonetheless! The change is important, since without it our dilemma isn’t clear. 🙂

Happy philosophizing,

Joe

My new book is NOW OUT! Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs

My new book is now available for order! Details:

Description: This book critically assesses arguments for the existence of the God of classical theism, develops an innovative account of objects’ persistence, and defends new arguments against classical theism. The authors engage the following classical theistic proofs: Aquinas’s First Way, Aquinas’s De Ente argument, and Feser’s Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Augustinian, Thomistic, and Rationalist proofs. The authors also provide the first systematic treatment of the ‘existential inertia thesis’. By connecting the thesis to relativity theory and recent developments in the philosophy of physics, and by developing a variety of novel existential-inertia-friendly explanations of persistence, they mount a formidable new case against classical theistic proofs. Finally, they defend new arguments against classical theism based on abstract objects and changing divine knowledge. The text appeals to students, researchers, and others interested in classical theistic proofs, the existence and nature of God, and the ultimate explanations of persistence, change, and contingency.

How to get ahold of the book:

• The hardcover is $149.99 and can be purchased at the Springer website or Amazon
• The eBook (PDF and EPUB) is $104.99 and can be purchased at at the Springer website or Amazon
• The Kindle version can be rented for as low as $41.70 at Amazon
• Many institutions and libraries have purchased Springer’s philosophy and religion eBook packages, which offer everyone with institutional or library access free, downloadable PDF and EPUB versions of the book. Purdue, for instance, falls into this category, and so I (along with any Purdue student, professor, or researcher) was able to freely download the book. Thus, check your local library or university to see if you can get access to the book. Even if your local library or university hasn’t purchased the Springer eBook packages, you can still ask your librarian if they can do an interlibrary loan for the book. This is another way to get ahold of the book without selling a kidney.
• Those with library/institutional access to the book also have another benefit: they can order a MyCopy of the book for only $39.99, which is a softcover version of the book.
• If none of this works for you, email me, and I may be able to help.

The preface: Read the preface here (PDF)

Important Notes:

• Check out my post here for an important clarification on Sect. 8.2.1 of the book! 🙂
• I had no say over the price! The reason it’s so expensive is that Springer primarily serves libraries, not individuals. This is true of many academic books and presses. Springer also keeps basically all the money made from sales.
• A heads up: the typesetters occasionally introduced some wonky formatting and indentation. Thankfully, it doesn’t detract from understanding!

Author: Joe

Classical Theism, First Causes, and Naturalism: A Response to Enric Gel

Recently, Enric F. Gel published a response to my response to his original paper in Religious Studies. I thank Enric wholeheartedly for his (gloriously meme-filled) response, and I also thank Enric for being the awesome person he is. (I’ve really enjoyed our public and private interactions!) In this post, I’ll be responding to Enric’s most recent response.

The Neo-Classical Challenge Vindicated: A Response to Feser

The logistics

This post is a response to Feser’s recent article “The Neo-Classical Challenge to Classical Theism” (Philosophy Compass). The post is broken into two parts. The first part is written by Dr. Ryan Mullins and only reflects Mullins’s views. The second part is written by Joe Schmid and only reflects Schmid’s views. References can be found at the end of the post. Notes can be found at the end of each part.

One of the Trinity Did Suffer: A Reply Against Classical Theism and Its Inherent Nestorianism

“The divine feels are real.” — Thomas Aquinas, maybe

This is a guest post by Dr. R.T. Mullins. Mullins is a philosophical theologian at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies (University of Helsinki). The views expressed herein are those of Mullins.

My article on the Neo-Platonic Proof is now online!

(1) My article “Simply Unsuccessful: The Neo-Platonic Proof of God’s Existence” (European Journal for Philosophy of Religion) criticizing Feser’s Neo-Platonic Proof is finally online! You can download it for free here: https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHSUT-9

(2) If you want to watch a video version of the above paper — one that includes some bonus content on the relationship between the Neo-Platonic Proof and the incarnation — check out my video lecture here: https://youtu.be/BYhV5JAy48g

(2) My blog is moving to the blog section of my new website: https://www.josephschmid.com

I’ll be uploading posts on both this blog you’re reading right now and the blog section of my new website for the first few months of 2022. After that, however, I’ll be exclusively using my new website. 🙂

(3) Happy New Year!

Author: Joe

Pawl and Grant on the Aloneness Argument: A Response

Tim Pawl and W. Matthews Grant—two philosophers whom I greatly admire and from whose work I have immensely benefitted and learned—have recently responded in the journal Religious Studies to my co-authored article with Ryan Mullins. I extend my utmost gratitude to Pawl and Grant for their engagement, and I aim to offer a cordial and thoughtful response in this post.