The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 33 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Making Sense of Divine Simplicity
Open accessAbstract
According to the doctrine of divine simplicity, God is an absolutely simple being lacking any distinct metaphysical parts, properties, or constituents. Although this doctrine was once an essential part of traditional philosophical theology, it is now widely rejected as incoherent. In this paper, I develop an interpretation of the doctrine designed to resolve contemporary concerns about its coherence, as well as to show precisely what is required to make sense of divine simplicity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
111 Own interpretation · 18 Sources not found · 8 No basis given · 5 No full text of the sources
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But unlike the claim that God is a property, these claims seem perfectly coherent (at least on the assumption that truthmaker theory is itself coherent).”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > MAKING SENSE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY Jeff rey E. Brower
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Truthmaker theory is coherent.
In the paper
“But concrete states of aff airs, as they are typically conceived, are structured complexes having constituents.33”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] 33. Freddoso, Alfred J. 2002. "Introduction." In Francisco Suarez, On Creation, Conservation, and Concurrence: Metaphysical Disputations 20, 21, and 22, trans. by Alfred J. Freddoso. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine's Press, pp. xi-cxxiii..
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To the extent that medieval thinkers suppose that creaturely predications imply the existence of properties, therefore, it is natural to suppose they do so on the basis of a perfectly general account of predication (and abstract reference)-what I earlier called 'the property account':”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > (Monologion 16)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interpreted in light of TA, the doctrine of divine simplicity avoids the problems associated with the property interpretation.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > MAKING SENSE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY Jeff rey E. Brower
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Truthmaker theory is coherent.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But, then, evidently, an absolutely simple God cannot be identifi ed with a state of aff airs of this sort.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even so, there are resources for responding to this claim that weren't available in the case of properties.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As I see it, none of these discussions provides anything like compelling grounds for abandoning the traditional conception of properties.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 2.3 Properties as Substances.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“traditional proponents of divine simplicity-thinkers such as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinasall assume that, at least in the case of creatures, expressions of the form 'a's F-ness' can refer to properties.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Augustine
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Anselm
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Aquinas
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidently, therefore, if we are going to defend the coherence of identifying God with a property, we must formulate a theory of properties according to which at least some properties are both concrete and individual.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 2. Property Interpretations of Simplicity
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although initially promising, the property-instance interpretation of simplicity must ultimately be rejected.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 2. Property Interpretations of Simplicity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 35
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we have seen, this understanding requires that God lacks any metaphysical parts, constituents, or complexity whatsoever.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, it would seem that any account of simplicity that could render the doctrine coherent without giving up the traditional conception of properties would be preferable to them.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 2.3 Properties as Substances.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Thus, 'Socrates' justice,' they say, refers to a quality that is distinct from and exemplifi ed by Socrates.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Augustine
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Anselm
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Aquinas
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this sort of interpretation is based on the general account of predication and abstract reference at SA, which takes all expressions of the form 'a's F-ness' to refer to states of aff airs.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no state of aff airs, whether simple or complex, can be exemplifi ed, whereas properties are by nature exemplifi able.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For so interpreted, the doctrine entails that God is identical with each of the truthmakers for the true (intrinsic) predications that can be made about him-indeed, that God himself is the truthmaker for each of these predications.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > MAKING SENSE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY Jeff rey E. Brower
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Truthmaker theory is coherent.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is nothing in divine simplicity itself that requires us to identify God with a property.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > MAKING SENSE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY Jeff rey E. Brower
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) God is a substance.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 2. Property Interpretations of Simplicity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, interpreting the doctrine in this way has the immediate consequence that God is identical with each of his properties, and hence is himself a property.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > (Monologion 16)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, there appear to be only two suggestions that have been developed-namely, (a) that abstract singular terms refer to states of affairs, and (b) that they refer to metaphysical constituents of particulars.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3. Alternative Interpretations of Simplicity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stated in this way, the doctrine seems to presuppose the existence of entities corresponding to abstract singular terms such as 'God's goodness,' 'God's power,' and 'God's wisdom.'”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 1. The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the second premise would seem to be non-negotiable as well, since it seems to be central tenet of our very conception of properties that, whatever else they are, they are not substances.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 2. Property Interpretations of Simplicity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before I can do so, however, I need make clear that in moving from the original to the revised constituent interpretation of simplicity, we have in fact introduced a new type of interpretation-one whose acceptability has nothing to do with constituents.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the truthmaker interpretation, therefore, God must be their truthmaker.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nor is there is anything obviously absurd about saying that God is himself the truthmaker for each of the true (intrinsic) predications that can be made about him.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the end, therefore, Plantinga appears to have been right-though not for the reasons he suggests-to suppose that the state-of-aff airs interpretation is just as unacceptable as the property interpretation.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Plantinga
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This last criticism brings us to an important respect in which both the property and the state-of-aff airs interpretations fail.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Indeed, this strategy seems to me not only plausible, but also the one adopted by Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.43”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Augustine
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Anselm
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Aquinas
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“On the contrary, this view seems perfectly intelligible, and has in fact been defended by a number of classical theists (including perhaps each of the following: Plato, Plotinus, Abelard, and Leibniz).”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Plato
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Plotinus
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Abelard, and Leibniz
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For according to CA*, the referents of abstract expressions must identifi ed in relation to the predications they make true.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be clear, in light of the foregoing, that to characterize an entity as a truthmaker is to characterize it in terms of a certain metaphysical function or role-that of necessitating (in a certain way) the truth of the predications it makes true.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker Interpretation.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Now, since nothing can be regarded as identical with anything other than itself, this interpretation just amounts to the claim that God is the truthmaker for each of the predications in question.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For unlike all the other accounts we've considered, CA characterizes the referents of abstract expressions of the form 'a's F-ness' in terms of an ontological type-namely, constituent-whose further specifi cation can include both substances and properties.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yes, provided we have the right metaphysical account of properties.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For now the claim that God is identical with his nature will just amount to the claim that he is identical with that constituent which makes him divine-i.e., with his divine-making constituent; again, the claim that he is identical with his justice will amount to the claim that he is identical with his just-making constituent; and so on for every other such theistic identity claim.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These predications certainly appear to be intrinsic.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It does not succumb to any of the problems plaguing the other contemporary interpretations of simplicity.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To do so would require our also saying that God alone is suffi cient for their truth, and hence that the truths themselves are cases of essential predication-which, in turn, entails that God could not have failed to know or will the things he actually knows or will.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the misleading connotations suggested by its name, the notion of a truthmaker is not to be understood in terms of (effi cient) causality.On the contrary, it is to be understood in terms of broadly logical necessitation”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, we need a way of distinguishing these sorts of constituents, if only because in many cases they really are distinct.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For as already hinted at in the case of creatures, to say that a given entity is that in virtue of which something is F is just to say it is that which makes it F, or alternatively, that which”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the truthmaker interpretation, God is identical with the truthmakers for each of the true (intrinsic) predications that can be made about him.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is to say, he is divine, good, and powerful in all possible worlds in which he exists, and hence is such as to necessitate the truth of the corresponding predications.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fi rst is that, it is not at all clear that the objection goes through.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For there is no obvious absurdity in saying that creatures have properties among their (proper) constituents, whereas God does not.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I have claimed that TA is a categorially neutral account of predication and abstract reference, and hence that in principle it places no restriction on the nature of the referents of expressions of the form 'a's F-ness.'”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the view that results from interpreting simplicity in terms of CA-namely, that God is identical with each of his constituents, and hence has only one constituent, himself-seems perfectly coherent (at least if we allow for the notion of an”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strictly speaking, therefore, even if the objection goes through, it doesn't threaten the basic project that I've undertaken here, which is that of making sense of divine simplicity.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“According to Aquinas, for example, the referents of 'Socrates' nature' and 'Socrates' justice' are not only distinct from each other but also distinct from Socrates.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Aquinas
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“According to classical theism, God is essentially divine, good, and powerful.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites classical theism
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Granted, if we assume that predications like”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, since these entities play the same functional role-that of explaining why something is hot-despite their being of diff erent categories, they are rightly said to belong to the same (functional) kind, heat, and hence to serve as the referents for the same type of expression.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Socrates, for example, cannot be regarded as the truthmaker for”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Obviously this answer will be of no use if we want properties to be the referents of such expressions.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“On this view, the referent for an expression such as 'Socrates' justice,' understood as a device for picking out the truthmaker of”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armstrong
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(C2): The entities referred to by such expressions are of a type whose instances can plausibly be both (i) identifi ed with concrete particular substances (as in the case of God's justice) and properties (as in the case of Socrates' justice); and (ii) distinguished (at least conceptually) from one another.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.3
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to TA, an expression such as 'a's justice' is an expression derived from a nominalization of a simple predication of the form 'a is F.' As such it is, as it were, a kind of technical term whose referential properties must understood in terms of its relation to the predication from which it derives: it just refers to whatever makes true its corresponding predications (in this case, 'a is”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I have also argued, however, that once we interpret the doctrine in terms of a truthmaker account, it turns out to be not only coherent, but also plausible in certain respects.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.4 Conclusion.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But since these are, at least as far as I can tell, the most powerful and obvious ones-apart from those that can be raised against truthmaker theory itself, whose coherence I am taking for granted in this paper 51 -I conclude that the truthmaker interpretation of simplicity is not only coherent, but even plausible in certain respects.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Truthmaker theory, as understood by its prominent defenders, is coherent.
- Rests on an assumption: The objections considered in the paper are the most powerful and obvious objections to the truthmaker account, apart from objections to truthmaker theory itself.
In the paper
“David Armstrong, for example, has argued that the truthmakers for contingent predications must be regarded as facts (or concrete states of aff airs).44”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armstrong
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“One can also argue, as C. B. Martin does, that the truthmakers for contingent predications are non-transferable tropesthat is, concrete individual properties that are essentially dependent on the subjects of which they are the properties.45”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites C. B. Martin
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I conclude, therefore, that the truthmaker interpretation is not only suffi cient for making sense of divine simplicity, but also necessary.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, once we have entered this framework-and I don't think this requires too much imagination, given the central role that truthmaking plays in much contemporary metaphysicsit turns out that we are in a position not only to appreciate the coherence of the doctrine of divine simplicity, but also a good bit of medieval metaphysics and philosophy of language as well.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.4 Conclusion.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Now provided that we are willing to grant the possibility that both fi re and water are substances, as the medievals themselves do, then claim 4 may be regarded as a case of accidental predication, and hence as requiring an accidental trope for its truthmaker, whereas claim 5 may be regarded as a case of essential predication, and hence as requiring only a particular substance, the fi re, for its”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, solely in virtue of possessing his nature, God will not only be just, but also omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly just, wise, and so on.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If I am right about this, however, then the referent of 'Socrates' justice' can be identifi ed with a property-one such that, in all possible worlds in which it exists, Socrates exists and is just-despite the fact that 'God's justice' must be identifi ed with a concrete particular (namely, God himself).47”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47] 47. ---. 1982. "Divine Simplicity," Religious Studies 18: 451-71.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The authors state this as an assumption.
Truthmaker theory is coherent.
“at least on the assumption that truthmaker theory is itself coherent”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Properties are abstract objects.
“at least on the assumption that properties are abstract objects”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Truthmaker theory, as understood by its prominent defenders, is coherent.
“In what follows I assume the coherence of truthmaker theory, as it is understood by some of its most prominent defenders”
“whose coherence I am taking for granted in this paper”
The paper relies on this without support.
The objections considered in the paper are the most powerful and obvious objections to the truthmaker account, apart from objections to truthmaker theory itself.
“But since these are, at least as far as I can tell, the most powerful and obvious ones-apart from those that can be raised against truthmaker theory itself, whose coherence I am taking for granted in this paper 51 -I conclude that the truthmaker interpretation of simplicity is not only coherent, but even plausible in certain respects.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.4 Conclusion.
“For a more complete development and defense of this view, see Mulligan, Simons, and Smith 1989.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > References
“Mulligan, Kevin, Peter Simons, and Barry Smith. 1984. "Truthmakers," Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 44: 287-321.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > References
“LaCroix, Richard R. 1979. "Wainwright, Augustine, and God's Simplicity: A Final Word," The New Scholasticism 53: 124-27.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > References
“Wainwright, William J. 1979. "Augustine on God's Simplicity: A Reply," The New Scholasticism 53: 124-27.”
Citations
Cites
Armstrong, D. M. (1993) · Nijhoff international philosophy series · doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8733-4_5 · Cited by 2,019
Universals: an opinionated introduction
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-5696 · Cited by 863
Universals and Scientific Realism
Goldstein, L., & Armstrong, D. M. (1979) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2219454 · Cited by 692
Rodriguez‐Pereyra, G. (2002) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199243778.001.0001 · Cited by 382
(1996) · doi:10.1093/mind/105.417.1 · Cited by 311
The reality of numbers: a physicalist's philosophy of mathematics
(1989) · doi:10.5860/choice.26-3309 · Cited by 302
Truthmaking and Difference‐Making
(2001) · doi:10.1111/0029-4624.00354 · Cited by 248
Truthmakers, entailment and necessity
Restall, G. (1996) · Australasian Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/00048409612347331 · Cited by 239
The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars
(1981) · doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1981.tb00453.x · Cited by 209
(1985) · doi:10.5840/faithphil19852449 · Cited by 154
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- [7]7. For a defense of the concrete conception of properties, also common- ly referred to as 'immanent realism,' see Armstrong 1978, vol. 2, chap. 3 and Armstrong 1997, chaps. 3-4.
- [11]11. See Bergmann and Brower 2006; Brower forthcoming; Immink 1987; Jordan 1983, esp. pp. 176-79; Left ow 1990, pp. 584-92; and Plantinga 1980, pp. 28-37.
- [14]14. Interestingly, in later work, Mann (1986, pp. 343-53) explicitly considers the aseity objection as well as the trope-nominalistic reply, though even here he does not adopt it. Like so many other defenders of simplicity, he is simply un- willing in the end to abandon Platonic realism altogether, and hence tries to re- but the objection from within a realist framework. For discussion of Mann's reply here, as well as the new problems it raises, see Wolterstorff 1991, pp. 538-40.
- [21]21. ---. 1978. Universals and Scientifi c Realism, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.
- [25]25. Brower, Jeff rey E. Forthcoming. "Aseity and Simplicity." In The Oxford Handbook to Philosophical Theology, ed. Thomas Flint and Michael Rea.
- [26]26. ---. 2004. "Anselm's Ethics." In The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, ed. Brian Davies and Brian Left ow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 222-56.
- [27]27. Campbell, Keith. 1990. Abstract Particulars. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- [29]29. Davies, Brian. 1987. "Classical Theism and the Doctrine of Divine Simplic- ity." In Language, Meaning, and God, ed. Brian Davies. London: Geoff rey Chapman, pp. 51-91.
- [33]33. Freddoso, Alfred J. 2002. "Introduction." In Francisco Suarez, On Creation, Conservation, and Concurrence: Metaphysical Disputations 20, 21, and 22, trans. by Alfred J. Freddoso. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine's Press, pp. xi-cxxiii..
- [36]36. Jordan, Mark D. 1983. "The Names of God and the Being of Names." In The Existence and Nature of God, ed. by Alfred J. Freddoso. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 161-90.
- [37]37. Kretzmann, Norman. 1983. "Abraham, Isaac, and Euthyphro." In Hamartia, ed. Donald Stump. Toronto: Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 27-50.
- [42]42. ---. 1984. "Simplicity and Eternity," Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University.
- [44]44. Michael D. Beaty. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 327-54.
- [65]65. Stump, Eleonore. 2003. Aquinas. London and New York: Routledge.
- [67]67. Swoyer, Chris. 2000. "Properties," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2000 Edition), ed.
- [72]72. James E. Tomberlin. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company, pp. 531-52.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.001.0001 · Cited by 182
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
Pruss, A. R. (2009) · The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology · doi:10.1002/9781444308334.ch2 · Cited by 70
A Theistic Argument against Platonism (and in Support of Truthmakers and Divine Simplicity)
(2006) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199290581.003.0012 · Cited by 59
Self-citationDivine Simplicity : A Dogmatic Account
Duby, S. J., & Duby, S. J. (2016) · Bloomsbury T&T Clark eBooks · doi:10.5040/9780567665706 · Cited by 52
Thomas Aquinas on the Claim that God is Truth
(2013) · doi:10.1353/hph.2013.0007 · Cited by 45
Wherein lies the debate? Concerning whether God is a person
Page, B. (2018) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-018-9694-x · Cited by 39
Brower, J. E. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596539.013.0006 · Cited by 42
Self-citationMatter, Form, and Individuation
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0008 · Cited by 25
Self-citation(2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192845436.001.0001 · Cited by 24
Two Theories of Analogical Predication
(2012) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656417.003.0002 · Cited by 24
Resurrection and the Separated Soul
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0035 · Cited by 21
(2021) · doi:10.1017/9781108966962 · Cited by 21
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0016 · Cited by 21
Bishop, J., & Perszyk, K. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864116.001.0001 · Cited by 20
Describing Gods: An Investigation of Divine Attributes
(2014) · Cited by 19
(2013) · doi:10.1002/9781118608005.ch24 · Cited by 17
The Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0037 · Cited by 16
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0032 · Cited by 15
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0021 · Cited by 12
Another Look at the Modal Collapse Argument
(2021) · doi:10.24204/ejpr.v13i1.3168 · Cited by 12
(2024) · doi:10.1017/9781009293105 · Cited by 12
Providence and the Problem of Evil
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0030 · Cited by 11
The Limits of Language and the Notion of Analogy
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0029 · Cited by 11
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0020 · Cited by 10
Divine persons as relationalqua-objects
(2018) · doi:10.1017/s0034412518000227 · Cited by 10
The deadlock of absolute divine simplicity
(2012) · doi:10.1007/s11153-012-9336-7 · Cited by 10
(2023) · doi:10.1017/9781009272391 · Cited by 9
Cotnoir, A. J., & The Society of Christian Philosophers (2017) · Faith and Philosophy · doi:10.5840/faithphil201741179 · Cited by 9
Self-citation(2021) · doi:10.24204/ejpr.2021.3306 · Cited by 9
In Defense of Divine Truthmaker Simplicity
(2018) · doi:10.11612/resphil.1754 · Cited by 8
(2015) · doi:10.1007/s11406-015-9601-y · Cited by 7
The Relation of Reason to Faith
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0026 · Cited by 7
Brower and Saenz on Divine Truthmaker Simplicity
(2018) · doi:10.5840/faithphil20181023114 · Cited by 6
Self-citationPhilosophy of Mind and Human Nature
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0027 · Cited by 6
(2013) · doi:10.11612/resphil.2013.90.1.1 · Cited by 6
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0019 · Cited by 5
Fales, E. M. (2013) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-013-0185-8 · Cited by 5
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0011 · Cited by 5
Shoring up divine simplicity against modal collapse: a powers account
LENOW, J. E. (2021) · Religious Studies · doi:10.1017/s0034412518000859 · Cited by 7
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0024 · Cited by 5
Accounting for the Whole: Why Pantheism is on a Metaphysical Par with Complex Theism
Cohoe, C. M. (2020) · Faith and Philosophy · doi:10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.2.4 · Cited by 4
Nested Modes, 'Qua' and the Incarnation
(2014) · doi:10.24204/ejpr.v6i2.178 · Cited by 4
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0017 · Cited by 4
The Development of Aquinas's Thought
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0038 · Cited by 4
Aḥwāl, Divine Simplicity, and Truthmakers
(2022) · doi:10.31820/ejap.18.2.7 · Cited by 3
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0010 · Cited by 3
Aquinas, Plato, and Neoplatonism
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0005 · Cited by 3
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0015 · Cited by 3
Divine Perfection and Creation
Mullins, R. T. (2016) · The Heythrop Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2011.00708.x · Cited by 3
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0002 · Cited by 2
Page, B. (2018) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-017-9632-3 · Cited by 2
Divine Simplicity and the Theory of Action
(2024) · doi:10.14428/thl.v9i1.82053 · Cited by 2
Why truthmaker theory cannot save divine simplicity
(2021) · doi:10.1007/s11153-021-09789-9 · Cited by 2
Repairing the Contingency Argument against Divine Simplicity
Collier, M. J. (2021) · Journal of Analytic Theology · doi:10.12978/jat.2021-9.120009021417 · Cited by 2
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0001 · Cited by 2
Echavarría, A. I. (2023) · TheoLogica An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology · doi:10.14428/thl.v7i2.67263 · Cited by 2
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0033 · Cited by 2
Michelson, J. (2022) · The Heythrop Journal · doi:10.1111/heyj.14148 · Cited by 2
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0023 · Cited by 2
Truthmaking, resemblance, and divine simplicity
(2021) · doi:10.1017/s0034412521000123 · Cited by 2
(2010) · doi:10.1002/9781444320152.ch31 · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0012 · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0003 · Cited by 1
La simplicité divine comme propriété positive
(2012) · doi:10.4000/theoremes.690 · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0031 · Cited by 1
McCall, T. H. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009622059 · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0039 · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0025 · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0013 · Cited by 1
Against the aloneness argument
(2025) · doi:10.1007/s11153-025-09948-2 · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0018 · Cited by 1
La predicación de los atributos divinos en Tomás de Aquino
(2013) · doi:10.35920/arf.v14i2.599 · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0007 · Cited by 1
Cotnoir, A. J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198875314.013.0036 · Cited by 1
Rooney, J. D. (2020) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-020-09745-z · Cited by 1
(2012) · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.013.0028 · Cited by 1
God, love, and analytic philosophy of religion: a feminist proposal
Rethlake, M. (2025) · Religious Studies · doi:10.1017/s0034412525101388
Personalist and Non-Personalist Understandings of Theism
Bishop, J., & Perszyk, K. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864116.003.0003
Bishop, J., & Perszyk, K. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864116.003.0004
Divine properties, parts, and parity
Stenberg, J. (2014) · Bijdragen · doi:10.1080/21692327.2015.1031160
Craig, W. L. (2025) · doi:10.1002/9781394278800.biblio
Bishop, J., & Perszyk, K. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864116.003.0008
Bishop, J., & Perszyk, K. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864116.002.0003
The Religious Adequacy of a Euteleological Theism
Bishop, J., & Perszyk, K. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864116.003.0006
Metadata
- Authors
- Brower, J. E., & The Society of Christian Philosophers
- Corresponding author
- Brower, Jeffrey E.
- Venue
- Faith and Philosophy
- Publisher
- Society of Christian Philosophers
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-30
- ISSN
- 0739-7046 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2013411601
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 46
- FWCI
- 12.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Faith and Philosophy (publishedVersion)
- ePlace - Preserving, Learning, and Creative Exchange (Asbury Theological Seminary) (submittedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Karl Barth and Christian Theology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Medieval Philosophy and Theology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Keywords
- divine simplicity, God, philosophical theology, divine attributes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
