Another Failed Modal Collapse Argument

Abstract The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is not composed of parts (physical or metaphysical). Modal collapse arguments aim to show that the necessary co-existence of God and creation follows from the doctrine. As noted by Christopher Tomaszewski, R. T. Mullins’s version of this argument assumes that a crucial term occurring within its premises is rigid, leaving the argument invalid or question begging. I examine a recent attempt by Mullins to repair his argument and defend the rigidity of this term. Mullins assumes a test for discerning rigidity on which he and Tomaszewski agree. I argue that this test is false and then provide a new test. My test bodes ill for modal collapse arguments in general.