Pawl and Grant on the Aloneness Argument

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 cannot wait to offer them a cordial and thoughtful response in my next blog post. [I might develop my response into a further article, however the chance of that is quite low — journals tend to dislike extended back-and-forths, as they threaten to falsify causal finitism by instantiating a supertask.] Hopefully the blog post will be up within the next 14 days, but I make no promises. 🙂 ❤


Author: Joe

3 thoughts on “Pawl and Grant on the Aloneness Argument

  1. I think your conflating an ontological claim with a mereological claim if u adopt mereological claim divine simplicity is a mereological claim not an ontological claim Analytic philosophy Has Begged the question of mereology since Frege Sorry Peter van inwagen and Trenton merricks but unlike both of those in meta ontology im not wedded to the word existence meaning the same thing in two places and i have to study philosophy in multiple language therefore i MUST recognise the distinction between distinction and distinction


  2. U know there’s a difference between criticizing idiots like Feser and Odeberg who think there arguments are rationnally compelling rite but not accepting kerr and nemes points because if u understand what they are saying

    That I exist is such that X=X
    That I exist when aquinas say it is such that X is instanted by something prior…

    U cant exist per se in a universe alone absent of gravity or electromagnetic forces so to avoid the this u have to do as Oppy would and say they are metaphysically necessary and accept a restricted modal collapse

    You are not begging the question neither is sobel nor oppy nor anyone who denys the doctrine
    Its a misunderstanding that split two traditions Damm it


  3. Have U even read Kant about existence Existence is not a predicate its not a property? Stein is a first order not a second order predicate Any Existence that is contingent (Dasein/Being-In-The-World-is-Contingent) There arent proper words in English to differentiate between the concepts, its been a problem for years thats why people can’t understand people like Kant when he says the thing-in-itself to a native english speaker it doesnt register


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s