tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post2570651703741246489..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Vagueness about existence of substancesAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-86146856343390632992008-03-08T19:59:00.000-06:002008-03-08T19:59:00.000-06:00I have no problem with something like voluntarism ...I have no problem with something like voluntarism here. God might just decide to put into place very precise laws as to when two individuals become one, etc.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-774821321624888642008-03-08T18:04:00.000-06:002008-03-08T18:04:00.000-06:00Williamson's epistemicism does allow for the super...Williamson's epistemicism does allow for the supervenience relation. The line is determined by the facts of language, which are determined by the facts about when people use which words and so on, and those facts supervene on physical facts.<BR/><BR/>I haven't read John Hawthorne's published stuff on epistemicism and God, but where he seemed to be heading when he left Syracuse (before those publications) was that this wouldn't ultimately work without something like divine voluntarism. I don't remember his reasoning, though.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.com