Modal collapse arguments are all the rage in certain philosophical circles as of late. The arguments purport to show that classical theism entails the absurdly fatalistic conclusion that everything exists necessarily. My first aim in this paper is bold: to put an end to action-based modal collapse arguments against classical theism. To accomplish this, I first articulate the ‘Simple Modal Collapse Argument’ and then characterize and defend Tomaszewski’s criticism thereof. Second, I critically examine Mullins’ new modal collapse argument formulated in response to the aforementioned criticism. I argue that Mullins’ new argument does not succeed. Third, I critically examine a powers-based modal collapse argument against classical theism that has received much less attention in the literature. Fourth, I show why God’s being purely actual, as well God’s being identical to each of God’s acts, simply cannot entail modal collapse given indeterministic causation. This, I take it, signals the death of modal collapse arguments. But not all hope is lost for proponents of modal collapse arguments—for the death is a fruitful one insofar as it paves the way for new inquiry into at least two new potential problems for classical theism. Showing this is my paper’s second aim.

最近，模态崩溃论点在某些哲学界风靡一时。这些论点旨在表明古典有神论包含一切必然存在的荒谬宿命论结论。我在这篇论文中的第一个目标是大胆的：结束反对古典有神论的基于行动的模态崩溃论点。为了实现这一点，我首先阐述了“简单模态崩溃论证”，然后描述和捍卫 Tomaszewski 的批评。其次，我批判性地研究了穆林斯为回应上述批评而提出的新的模态崩溃论点。我认为穆林斯的新论点没有成功。第三，我批判性地研究了一种反对古典有神论的基于权力的模态崩溃论点，该论点在文献中受到的关注要少得多。第四，我展示了为什么上帝纯粹是真实的，以及上帝与上帝的每一个行为都是相同的，鉴于不确定的因果关系，根本不可能导致模态崩溃。我认为，这标志着模态崩溃论点的死亡。但对于模态崩溃论点的支持者来说，并不是所有的希望都消失了——因为死亡是一个富有成效的，因为它为对古典有神论至少两个新的潜在问题的新研究铺平了道路。展示这一点是我论文的第二个目标。