Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Divine properties, parts, and parity.Joseph Stenberg - 2014 - International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 75 (5):388-405.
    Christian Platonism and Divine Simplicity remain the most commonly discussed views with respect to the way in which Christians ought to conceive of God’s nature and properties. In this essay, I suggest that we ought to consider seriously two versions of a quite different view, namely, what I call “the Nominalized Composite God View.” Both versions of the Nominalized Composite God View share two features: (1) they treat God as metaphysically composite, in opposition to Divine Simplicity, and (2) they deny (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Divine commands, Christian platonism and God's nature.Paul Rooney - 1996 - Heythrop Journal 37 (2):155–175.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • The simplicity of divine ideas: theistic conceptual realism and the doctrine of divine simplicity.Michelle Panchuk - 2021 - Religious Studies 57 (3):385-402.
    There has been little discussion of the compatibility of Theistic Conceptual Realism with the doctrine of divine simplicity. On the one hand, if a plurality of universals is necessary to explain the character of particular things, there is reason to think this commits the proponent of TCR to the existence of a plurality of divine concepts. So the proponent of the DDS has aprima faciereason to reject TCR. On the other hand, many mediaeval philosophers accept both the existence of divine (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Simplicity and Properties: A Reply to Morris.William E. Mann - 1986 - Religious Studies 22 (3-4):343 - 353.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Logic and Divine Simplicity.Anders Kraal - 2011 - Philosophy Compass 6 (4):282-294.
    The paper surveys two contrasting views of first‐order analyses of classical theistic doctrines about the existence and nature of God. On the first view, first‐order logic provides methods for the adequate analysis of these doctrines, for example by construing ‘God’ as a singular term or as a monadic predicate, or by taking it to be a definite description. On the second view, such analyses are conceptually inadequate, at least when the doctrines in question are viewed against the background of classical (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations