Abstract Traditional Christian theism maintains that God’s creative act is intentional and rational, which suggests God must have ideas or creative blueprints in mind when creating. We also have good reason to think that God’s creative act displays creativity or artistry . Tom Ward has recently argued that God gets his creative blueprints from knowing himself, a position he calls ‘Containment Exemplarism’. However, Paul Gould has recently argued that Containment Exemplarism undermines God’s status as paradigmatically artistic or creative. I argue that Gould’s argument is unsuccessful. As I will argue, the conception of creativity Gould employs as the basis for his argument, if understood permissively, can be reconciled to Containment Exemplarism. If understood in a manner to avoid this reconciliation, the conception of creativity Gould utilises is unduly restrictive and leads to unintuitive consequences. Containment Exemplarists would thus be entitled to reject it.
Bankole A. Johnson (Tue,) studied this question.