A necessary and sufficient condition for being a universalist is that you maintain UNIVERSAL. According to UNIVERSAL, every being that could have salvific union with God...
In his 2014 paper, ‘A New Kalam Argument: Revenge of the Grim Reaper’, Rob Koons presents what is surely the canonical version of the Grim Reaper...
I want to give this argument in part to provoke a bit of discussion of the role of FOL in philosophy. Though, I don’t think the argument carries great weight.
The only way for proponents of divine simplicity to avoid modal collapse implies rejecting the idea that God really loves people.
Let ‘w’ refer to any world. Then “exists in” expresses a perfectly fine relation between entities and worlds. Let S be the set of worlds in which history ends in 30 BC.
Pretend that the following argument is sound. Let ‘God’ abbreviate the indefinite description ‘a being than which none greater can be conceived’.
I will argue from the fact that some rational persons enjoy eternal bliss to universalism. My conclusion is that necessarily, universalism is true.
Suppose there is a perfect being, God—a being maximal in power, knowledge, and goodness. Then this being will likely save, i.e. restore relationship with, everyone (all humans) eventually because
I am starting to appreciate the confessional nature of arguments. Arguments are avenues for thinkers simply to confess to their dialectical partners what strikes them as convincing, true, or clear.
Recent Comments