Thank you for your work. I've especially enjoyed the EQUIP program and just completed the second course mullinism. That brings to mind a question

I've been wanting to ask. I agree with the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being.

However, in defense of mullinism, I've not read or heard you bring that up. What I mean is,

most would accept that God has natural knowledge and free knowledge,

but wouldn't a God who also possesses middle knowledge be greater? This is, the greatest

conceivable being must possess not only free knowledge and natural knowledge, but middle

knowledge as well. If he didn't possess it, he wouldn't be the

greatest conceivable being. Would he? Thank you, Mark, from the United States.

I'm so glad to hear that you're working your way through our equip program, Mark.

So many people have told us how useful they have found it. Your question gives me the

opportunity to correct an infelicity in my previous expression. I have frequently referred to God

as the greatest conceivable being, But I've recently come to appreciate

that Anselm's concept of God is much more exalted than that. Anselm believed that God was even

greater than anything that we can conceive.

So it would be more accurate to speak of God as a maximally great being or a perfect being.

He is even greater than the greatest being we can conceive. That's why Alvin Plantiga formulated Anselm's

ontological argument in terms of maximal greatness. Now, I agree with you that if middle knowledge

is a coherent notion, then a maximally great being should possess middle

knowledge. For a maximally great being must be omniscient, and an omniscient being must know

all true propositions, including counterfactual propositions about how people would

freely choose under various circumstances.

Moreover, a maximally great being must be omnipotent, and a being who is able to actualize states of affairs indirectly by placing free

...