Maximal God

Yujin Nagasawa presents a new, stronger version of perfect being theism, the conception of God as the greatest possible being. Although perfect being theism is the most common form of monotheism in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition its truth has been disputed by philosophers and theologians for centuries. Nagasawa proposes a new, game-changing defence of perfect being theism by developing what he calls the 'maximal concept of God'. Perfect being theists typically maintain that God is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being; according to Nagasawa, God should be understood rather as a being that has the maximal consistent set of knowledge, power, and benevolence. Nagasawa argues that once we accept the maximal concept we can establish perfect being theism on two grounds. First, we can refute nearly all existing arguments against perfect being theism simultaneously. Second, we can construct a novel, strengthened version of the modal ontological argument for perfect being theism. Nagasawa concludes that the maximal concept grants us a unified defence of perfect being theism that is highly effective and economical.

Yujin Nagasawa presents a new, stronger version of perfect being theism, the conception of God as the greatest possible being. Although perfect being theism is the most common form of monotheism in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition its truth has been disputed by philosophers and theologians for centuries. Nagasawa proposes a new, game-changing defence of perfect being theism by developing what he calls the 'maximal concept of God'. Perfect being theists typically maintain that God is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being; according to Nagasawa, God should be understood rather as a being that has the maximal consistent set of knowledge, power, and benevolence. Nagasawa argues that once we accept the maximal concept we can establish perfect being theism on two grounds. First, we can refute nearly all existing arguments against perfect being theism simultaneously. Second, we can construct a novel, strengthened version of the modal ontological argument for perfect being theism. Nagasawa concludes that the maximal concept grants us a unified defence of perfect being theism that is highly effective and economical.

Yujin Nagasawa presents a new, stronger version of perfect being theism, the conception of God as the greatest possible being. Although perfect being theism is the most common form of monotheism in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition its truth has been disputed by philosophers and theologians for centuries. Nagasawa proposes a new, game-changing defence of perfect being theism by developing what he calls the 'maximal concept of God'. Perfect being theists typically maintain that God is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being; according to Nagasawa, God should be understood rather as a being that has the maximal consistent set of knowledge, power, and benevolence. Nagasawa argues that once we accept the maximal concept we can establish perfect being theism on two grounds. First, we can refute nearly all existing arguments against perfect being theism simultaneously. Second, we can construct a novel, strengthened version of the modal ontological argument for perfect being theism. Nagasawa concludes that the maximal concept grants us a unified defence of perfect being theism that is highly effective and economical.

The evil-god challenge is one of the most popular topics in contemporary philosophy of religion. In this landmark text, Jack Symes offers the most detailed examination of the challenge to date. Exploring the nature of god through the leading schools of philosophical theology, Symes argues that it is significantly more reasonable to attribute goodness to god than evil. Drawing from a breadth of ground-breaking material – in metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics and epistemology – Symes claims to defeat the evil-god challenge on behalf of traditional theism. Is it any more reasonable to believe in a good god than an evil god? Not according to proponents of the evil-god challenge. After all, the world contains a significant amount of good and evil for which either god could be held responsible. However, if belief in both gods is equally as reasonable, then religious believers are unjustified in favouring one hypothesis over the other. Therefore, in order to defend their faith, theists must respond to the evil-god challenge: the question of what justifies belief in good god over evil god.

Does God exist? Throughout the history of philosophical and theological reflection, this fundamental question has prompted a range of responses. In one incisive volume, philosopher W. David Beck offers a narrative of pre-Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic arguments for God's existence. Here, readers will encounter both classical and contemporary arguments, including cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological arguments along with commentary from the author. Explore the history of answers to an essential question and add your own reflections to this ongoing conversation.

What must reality be like if the God of Abrahamic theism exists? How could the worldview of Abrahamic theism be understood if not in terms of the existence of a supremely powerful, knowledgeable, and good personal being? John Bishop and Ken Perszyk argue that it is reasonable to reject what many analytic philosophers take to be the standard conception of God as the 'personal omniGod'. They argue that a version of a 'logical' Argument from Evil is still very much in play, contrary to the widely held view that this line of argument is bankrupt. This book provides a new presentation and defence of the alternative that Bishop and Perszyk have called euteleology. Its core claims are that reality is inherently purposive, and that the Universe exists ultimately because its overall end (telos), which is the supreme good, is made concretely real within it. There is no supreme agent ('standing by' while horrors take place); God is 'no-thing' in euteleology's basic ontology. Rather, talk of God-as-a-personal-being is a cognitive construction, treating ultimate reality by analogy with our ordinary ways of experiencing and talking about the world. But euteleological theism is also emphatically realist. Analogizing God-talk enables humans to align themselves with reality and is aptly deployed in prayer and worship-practices whose broad function is a human contribution to, and enjoyment of, the fulfilment of reality's inherent ultimate purpose.

Faith, Flourishing, and Agnosticism uses conceptual and empirical methods to argue that the many individuals who have ambiguous evidence for God can grow in virtue and attain greater flourishing by engaging in practices of faith toward God. The book develops a way of thinking about God, called minimal theism. It argues that a sizeable number of people have ambiguous evidence for God, and it provides support for arguments for agnosticism through an evaluation of theistic and atheistic arguments and higher-order evidence about God. It discusses what kind of cognitive commitments toward God are required to engage in faith practices such as thanking or praising God, and develops unique arguments that these can be supplied by beliefs or non-doxastic assumptions but not other states. Four pathways whereby individuals with ambiguous evidence for God can grow in virtue through such faith practices are identified. First, they can grow in general virtuous tendencies to give other people the benefit of the doubt by giving God the benefit of the doubt. Second, they can indirectly grow in a broad range of virtues by experiencing better mental health as a consequence of accepting God's love. Third, they can make skilled use of the worldview of minimal theism to cultivate transformative experiences of awe and connectedness, thereby supporting the specific virtue of spiritual excellence. Finally, by this same process, they can reap further downstream benefits in character growth, independently of whether spiritual excellence is virtuous.

The Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies (JBTS) is an academic journal focused on the fields of Bible and Theology from an inter-denominational point of view. The journal is comprised of an editorial board of scholars that represent several academic institutions throughout the world. JBTS is concerned with presenting high-level original scholarship in an approachable way. Academic journals are often written by scholars for other scholars. They are technical in nature, assuming a robust knowledge of the field. There are fewer journals that seek to introduce biblical and theological scholarship that is also accessible to students. JBTS seeks to provide high-level scholarship and research to both scholars and students, which results in original scholarship that is readable and accessible. As an inter-denominational journal JBTS is broadly evangelical. We accept contributions in all theological disciplines from any evangelical perspective. In particular, we encourage articles and book reviews within the fields of Old Testament, New Testament, Biblical Theology, Church History, Systematic Theology, Practical Theology, Philosophical Theology, Philosophy, and Ethics.