In defence of logical nominalism: Reply to leftow1: Richard Swinburne

Religious Studies 46 (3):311-330 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper defends logical nominalism, the thesis that logically necessary truth belongs primarily to sentences and depends solely on the conventions of human language. A sentence is logically necessary iff its negation entails a contradiction. A sentence is a posteriori metaphysically necessary iff it reduces to a logical necessity when we substitute for rigid designators of objects or properties canonical descriptions of the essential properties of those objects or properties. The truth-conditions of necessary sentences are not to be found in any transcendent reality, such as God's thoughts. ‘There is a God’ is neither a priori nor a posteriori metaphysically necessary; God is necessary in the sense that His existence is not causally contingent on anything else.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
34 (#467,141)

6 months
2 (#1,187,206)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Naming and Necessity: Lectures Given to the Princeton University Philosophy Colloquium.Saul A. Kripke - 1980 - Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Edited by Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel.
God, freedom, and evil.Alvin Plantinga - 1978 - Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ways a world might be.Robert Stalnaker - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 133 (3):439 - 441.
Absolute Creation.Thomas V. Morris & Christopher Menzel - 1986 - American Philosophical Quarterly 23 (4):353 - 362.

Add more references