, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 359–380 | Cite as

Does a Truly Ultimate God Need to Exist?

  • Johann PlatzerEmail author


We explore a ‘Neo-Cartesian’ account of divine ultimacy that raises the concept of God to its ultimate level of abstraction so that we can do away with even the question of his existence. Our starting point is God’s relation to the logical and metaphysical order of reality and the views of Descartes and Leibniz on this topic. While Descartes held the seemingly bizarre view that the eternal truths are freely created by God, Leibniz stands for the mainstream view that the eternal truths are grounded in God’s nature. We argue that the implausibility of Descartes’ doctrine stems mainly from the assumption that there is a non-epistemic notion of absolute necessity (metaphysical necessity) that constitutes the ultimate court of appeal for all modal questions and that this assumption is questionable. We also question the assumption that God’s ultimacy merely requires that all reality be grounded in God in the sense of mere explanation, so that it suffices if the necessary truths are grounded in God’s nature but not in God’s will. This will lead us to a reassessment of Descartes’ position. In the final and main part of the paper, we push Descartes’ doctrine of the creation of the eternal truths to its ‘logical’ conclusion with the aim of getting to a novel conception of ‘God.’


God’s nature Laws of logic Modality Descartes Leibniz Quantum mechanics Existence Nonexistence 


  1. Aristotle (1984) Metaphysics, trans. W. D. Ross, revised by J. Barnes, (Princeton: Princeton UP).Google Scholar
  2. Beebe, J. R. (2011). A Priori Skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 83(3), 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjerring, J. C. (2013). On Counterpossibles. Philosophical Studies, 2, 1–27.Google Scholar
  4. Bliss, R., & Trogdon, K. (2014). Metaphysical grounding. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: N/a.Google Scholar
  5. Brogaard, B., & Salerno, J. (2013). Remarks on counterpossibles. Synthese, 190(4), 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke-Doane J (2017) ‘Modal objectivity’, Forthcoming in Nous. Google Scholar
  7. Conee, Earl (1991) The possibility of power beyond possibility, philosophical perspectives (5), 447–473.Google Scholar
  8. Cottingham J., Stoothoff R., and Murdoch D. (1985) The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vols. 1 and 2, (Cambridge: Cambridge UP).Google Scholar
  9. Cottingham J., Stoothoff R., Murdoch D., and Kenny A. (1991) The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 3, (Cambridge: Cambridge UP).Google Scholar
  10. Cowling, S. (2011). The limits of modality. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(244), 473–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craig William Lane (2017) God and abstract objects. The Coherence of Theism: Aseity, Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Curley, E. (1984). Descartes on the creation of eternal truths. Philosophical Review, 93, 569–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Da Costa, N. C. A., & de Ronde, C. (2013). The paraconsistent logic of superpositions. Foundations of Physics, 43, 854–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Da Costa, N. C. A., & de Ronde, C. (2014). Non-reflexive logical foundations for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 44, 1369–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frankfurt, H. (1977). Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. Philosophical Review, 86(1), 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. French, S., & Krause, D. (2006). Identity in physics: A historical, philosophical, and formal analysis. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geach Peter, T. (1973). Omnipotence. Philosophy, 48(183), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gould, P. M. (Ed.). (2014). Beyond the control of God? Six views on the problem of God and abstract objects. New York NY: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Katz, B. D. (2003). On the limits of divine power. Sophia, 42(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaufman, D. (2002). Descartes’ creation doctrine and modality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 80(1), 24–41.Google Scholar
  21. Leftow, B. (2012). God and necessity. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mann, W. E. (1989). Modality, morality, and God. Nous, 23(1), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCann, H. J. (2012). Creation and the sovereignty of God. Bloomington: Indiana UP.Google Scholar
  24. Morris, T. V., & Menzel, C. (1986). Absolute creation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 23(4), 353–362.Google Scholar
  25. Mortensen, C. (1989). Anything is possible. Erkenntnis, 30(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newlands, S. (2013). Leibniz and the ground of possibility. Philosophical Review, 122, 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nolan, D. (1997). Impossible worlds: A modest approach. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38(4), 535–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  29. Plantinga, A. (1980). Does God have a nature? Milwaukee: Marquette UP.Google Scholar
  30. Quine, W. V. (1953). From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  31. Rowe, W. L. (2004). Can God be free. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  32. Saunders, S. (2006). Are quantum particles objects. Analysis, 66, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schrödinger, E. (1996). Nature and the Greeks and science and humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strawson, G. (1994). The impossibility of moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 75(1–2), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tahko, T. E. (2009). The law of non-contradiction as a metaphysical principle. Australasian Journal of Logic, 7, 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tillich, P. (1955). Biblical religion and the search for ultimate reality. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations