Reply to Cameron

Ross Cameron has argued that the modal realism of David Lewisfurnishes the theist with the resources to explain divine necessity. Cameron issuccessful in identifying two theistic strategies, but neither is attractive in lightof a commitment to modal realism. The first theistic strategy is to treat God as anabstract entity in the same way that the modal realist treats pure sets. This isundermotivated in light of the nominalistic spirit of modal realism. The secondstrategy is to regard God as enjoying trans-world identity because the divine naturecan possess no accidental intrinsic properties. This approach raises a problem ofhow one is to understand the notion of actuality