Freedom, God, and Worlds - Hardcover

Almeida has produced a compelling and challenging book that is conversant with, and demands the attention of, contemporary debates in philosophy of religion (Jamie Boulding, The Expository Times)

Almeida offers a rigorous challenge to some widely accepted assumptions that underlie various philosophical arguments against the existence of God . . . Almeida defends a view implying that it is not an a priori necessary truth that God has the essential properties of perfect goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, or necessary existence . . . The book's nine chapters develop this view with exceptional rigor and detail, along with due attention to the relevant philosophical works opposing theism . . . Highly recommended. (Paul K. Moser, Choice)

Michael Almeida offers us a detailed defense of moderate Anselmian theism from all versions of the argument from evil . . . This is a brilliant book (Peter Forrest, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews)

Michael J. Almeida presents a powerful argument which holds that several widely believed and largely undisputed objections to the idea of the existence of God are in fact just philosophical dogmas. He challenges some of the most well-entrenched principles in philosophical theology, which have served as basic assumptions in influential apriori, atheological arguments. But most theists also maintain that the principles express apriori necessary truths, including those principles that are presumed to follow from the nature of an essentially omnipotent, essentially omniscient, essentially perfectly good and necessarily existing being. Among the atheological arguments that deploy these philosophical dogmas are the Logical Problem of Evil, the Logical Problem of theBest Possible World, the Logical Problem of Good Enough Worlds, the Problem of Divine Freedom, the Problem of No Best World, and the Evidential Problem of Evil. In Freedom, God, and Worlds Almeida claims that these arguments present no important challenge to the existence of an Anselmian God. Not only are these philosophical principles false, they are necessarily false.