Talk:Modal collapse

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redirect to Contingency (philosophy)

I'd like to redirect this page to Contingency (philosophy), "C". While modal collapse arguments are involved in theological applications, the basic idea should be explored in more detail in the C. I'm happy to report on its theological applications. But I want to explore the nature of the reasons for modal collapse in their own right. It would be hard to discuss criticisms against modal collapse in their own right since they seem to mostly come from the theological context anyway. But this stub doesn't seem too detailed and I finished reading it and found myself looking for much more detail. I've tried reaching out to the creator yesterday but something tells me they'll be too busy. I'll try to do this merger into C carefully while both preserving the substance of this stub and expanding on the argument details. If anyone's here.......let me know what you think. Non-pegasus (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Schmid's Argument Against Modal Collapse

I wanted to share an article by Joseph C. Schmid, The Fruitful Death of Modal Collapse Arguments, which argues that the modal collapse objections to classical theism fail due to indeterministic causality. Schmid specifically critiques the arguments of Mullins and others, concluding that these objections do not disprove classical theism. Additionally, the article opens new avenues for research on the theoretical challenges related to divine action and providence. Iphisophia (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]