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.
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
“Note, however, that adopting this line of response requires us to reject the view that there is any categorial diff erence between states of aff airs and substances-just as the earlier adoption of this strategy required us to reject the view that there is a categorial diff erence between properties and substances.”
§ 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.
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 states of aff airs can, even if properties cannot, be conceived of in a way that is amenable to their identifi cation with substances.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs 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: 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
“Without some such motivation, however, the strategy they adopt for making sense of simplicity appears not only extreme, but also extremely ad hoc.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 2.3 Properties as Substances.
hedgeddirect- 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.
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 claim that God is a concrete universal seems just as problematic as the claim that he is an abstract universal.”
§ 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: 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
“In light of the foregoing, there seems to be good reason initially to accept a property interpretation of divine simplicity-that is to say, one that combines the doctrine as stated at DS with the property account at PA.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > (Monologion 16)
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.
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 short answer is that such a conception of God confl icts with the standard understanding of divine simplicity.”
§ 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.
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
“arguing that, in fact, it provides the only way of rendering the doctrine of divine simplicity coherent.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > MAKING SENSE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY Jeff rey E. Brower
boosteddirect- 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 even if successful, it would still seem that no state-of-aff airs interpretation could succeed in rendering the doctrine of divine simplicity coherent.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
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.
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 order to make sense of this assumption, the defender of the state-of-aff airs interpretation would have to allow that, at least in the case of creatures, states of aff airs can be identifi ed with properties.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
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.
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 suggests that to the extent the revised constituent interpretation succeeds as an interpretation, it does so precisely because it is a species of the truthmaker interpretation.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker Interpretation.
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.
In the paper
“Moreover, his suggestion that the medievals interpret the doctrine in terms of CA (rather than PA) seems promising.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wolterstorff 1991 source
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.
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 property account at PA is, as I've suggested, at the root of most contemporary puzzlement over the doctrine.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
hedgeddirect- 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.
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 fact that the truthmaker interpretation of simplicity can be adequately stated without any reference to constituents (but not vice versa), confi rms that it is the notion of truthmaking (rather than constituency) that is crucial for interpreting the doctrine of simplicity.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker Interpretation.
boosteddirect- 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
“But here again, it seems that we can draw the relevant sort of distinction only if we characterize the constituents in question as follows: God's nature is that constituent in virtue of which he is divine, and his justice and power, respectively, are those constituents in virtue of which he is just and powerful.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
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.
In the paper
“Evidently, therefore, in order to remove the incompleteness associated with Wolterstorff 's constituent account, we must revise CA along the following lines:”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wolterstorff 1991 source
boosteddirect- 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
“If we want to avoid the problems associated with interpretations of simplicity that take for granted a single-category theory of predication, we must adopt a new account of predication-one that allows us to characterize the referents of abstract expressions in a way that is consistent with their belonging to diff erent ontological categories (in particular, the categories of substance and property”
§ 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: 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.
In the paper
“Even so, it seems to me that there is a respect in which the theory of predication and abstract reference underlying it is unacceptably incomplete.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wolterstorff 1991 source
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.
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
“We have now arrived at what I take to be the only type of interpretation that can succeed in making sense of divine simplicity-namely, the truthmaker interpretation.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“It is possible, however, to resist this assumption, and to argue instead that such predications are really cases of contingent, extrinsic predication.42”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.1 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Contingency.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [42] 42. ---. 1984. "Simplicity and Eternity," Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University.
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.
- 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
“But no single-category account of predication can do that, since no single ontological category can include both substances and 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
“All versions of the property interpretation take for granted that such entities belong to the category of property”
§ 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
“For even if it makes sense to say that expressions such as 'Socrates' justice' or 'Socrates' nature' refer to metaphysical constituents of Socrates, CA gives us no principled basis for distinguishing these constituents.”
§ 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: 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
“There is nothing internally inconsistent-and so nothing absurd in that sense-about saying that God could not have known or willed otherwise than he actually knows or wills.”
§ 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.
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
“Given what we have said about truthmakers, however, we can see that TA is just such a theory.In taking the referents of abstract expressions to be truthmakers, it places no restriction whatsoever on the nature or ontological category to which they belong.”
§ 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.
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 interpretation of simplicity seems promising if we focus on predications such as”
§ 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: 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
“Notice, however, that in the case of creatures, the same sort of expression, (e.g.) 'Socrates' justice,' will typically refer to the truthmaker of an accidental or contingent predication.”
§ 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: 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 without further comment, it should be clear that the revised constituent interpretation goes considerable distance toward rendering the doctrine of divine simplicity coherent.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
boosteddirect- 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.
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 second thing to be said, however, is that strictly speaking, this objection concerns the plausibility not the coherence 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.
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, I have argued that these referents can be plausibly identifi ed with concrete particular substances-indeed, God himself-in the case of God.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“so too the characterization of an entity as a truthmaker enables us to prescind from the precise ontological category to which it belongs.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker 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.
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
“both interpretations take for granted what might be called a 'single-category account' of predication and abstract reference”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.1 The State-of-aff airs Interpretation.
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.
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
“Note that the same sort of problem arises in the case of God as well.For even if God is absolutely simple, and hence identical with each of his constituents, we can still draw a conceptual distinction between God's nature and his justice or power”
§ 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.
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 to describe God's constituents in this way is already to invoke a further notion-namely, that of a truthmaker.”
§ 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: 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.
In the paper
“Once it is introduced, however, his interpretation no longer seems objectionable.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wolterstorff 1991 source
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
“whereas all versions of the state-of-aff airs interpretation take for granted they belong to the category of state of aff airs.”
§ 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.
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
“But if this is correct, there would appear to be no reason to appeal to constituents in the fi rst place, especially if one thinks, as I do, that it is the truthmaker account, rather than any form of constituent account, that represents the actual views of medievals such as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas on predication and abstract reference.36”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker 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.
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.
- 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 the same reason, the referents of such expressions can, at least in principle, be identifi ed not only with concrete particulars in the case of God, but also with properties in the case of creatures.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker 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: 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
“The problem, however, is that the doctrine of divine simplicity cannot be interpreted solely in terms of either properties or states of aff airs-or indeed in terms of entities belonging to any single ontological category.”
§ 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
“A problem arises, however, when we turn our att ention to predications like”
§ 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.
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 the same reason, we cannot typically say in this sort of case that the referent of the expression is a concrete individual.”
§ 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.
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
“Notice, moreover, that the interpretation also enables us to make sense of the claim that God's constituents are each identical with one another.”
§ 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: 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
“In taking the referents of abstract expressions to be truthmakers, it places no restriction whatsoever on the nature or ontological category to which they belong.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Wolterstorff 's diagnosis of contemporary diffi culties with simplicity seems plausible in light of our earlier discussion.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wolterstorff 1991 source
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.
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 interpretation that presupposes a single-category account of predication can possibly be used to make sense of divine simplicity-regardless of whether the single category in question is taken to be property, state of aff airs, or any other.”
§ 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
“If my argument to this point has been successful, it will be clear that the truthmaker interpretation of simplicity provides us with an account of the doctrine that is prima facie coherent.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4. The Truthmaker Interpretation Defended
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.
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, wherever the predications are distinct, there will be grounds for at least a conceptual distinction of the referents.”
§ 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: 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.
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 it is hard to see how this can be explained unless we add something like the following: although 'Socrates' nature' and 'Socrates' justice' both refer to constituents of Socrates, 'Socrates' nature' refers to that constituent which makes him human, whereas 'Socrates' justice' refers to that constituent which makes him just.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.2 The Constituent Interpretation.
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
“What makes it possible-indeed, plausible-to say (e.g.) that 'God's justice' refers to God himself is that the referent of this expression, on TA, is the truthmaker of an essential predication,”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
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
“That this is the case is clear from the fact that the revised constituent interpretation at CA* can be re-stated without any reference to constituents whatsoever without any loss of plausibility.”
§ 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: 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.
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
“Note, too, that this view is consistent with the claim that expressions of the form 'a's F-ness' refer to properties in the case of creatures.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether 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 the revised constituent interpretation makes reference to both constituents and truthmakers, it is, I now want to suggest, the notion of truthmaking (rather than constituency) that is really doing the important theoretical work.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker Interpretation.
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
“the doctrine must be understood in terms of an account of predication and abstract reference that allows for expressions of the form 'a's F-ness' to refer both to properties (as in the case of Socrates' justice) and to concrete particular substances (as in the case of God's justice).”
§ 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
“Note, however, that when we interpret the doctrine of simplicity in terms of it, we arrive at the same view that makes the revised constituent interpretation seem so promising-namely, that God is identical with the truthmakers for each of his (intrinsic) predications.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker 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.
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 point is important because a complete analysis of truthmaking in terms of entailment or necessitation would lead to obvious absurdities, including the absurdity that necessary truths-such as”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 3.3 The Truthmaker Interpretation.
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.
In the paper
“According to Aquinas, for example, metaphysical kinds are to be understood in broadly functional terms: things belong to the metaphysical kinds they do in virtue of possessing certain powers or capacities (namely, those that are defi nitive of their kind).”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MacDonald 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- 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
“In principle, therefore, there is nothing about the expression's form or syntactical type which rules out the possibility of its referring to accidental properties or tropes in one case, and to concrete particulars in another-provided, of course, that both of these types of entity can plausibly be regarded as playing the role of truthmaker of the relevant type of predication.”
§ 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: 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
“Indeed, if I am right, this diffi culty does not trace (as Wolterstorff 's interpretation suggests) to any fundamental disagreement about whether properties are constituents, but rather traces (as mine suggests) to a fundamental disagreement about the ontological commitments of predication and abstract reference.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.4 Conclusion.
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.
In the paper
“This sort of trope nominalism seems to me to represent the view of properties most commonly endorsed by medieval philosophers.46”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [46] 46. ---. 1983. "Simplicity and Immutability in God," International Philo- sophical Quarterly 23: 267-76.
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.
- 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
“from the perspective of the truthmaker account, the form or syntactical type of an expression such as 'a's justice' is irrelevant to the specifi c ontological category of its referent.”
§ 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.
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
“All the interpretations of simplicity that we have examined other than the truthmaker interpretation fail because they rely on the wrong account of predication and abstract reference.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.3
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.
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
“From the failure of the property and states-of-aff airs interpretations we learn that the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity cannot be made sense of apart from a categorially neutral account of predication and abstract reference.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.3
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.
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 in the case of a creature such as Socrates, whose justice can clearly wax and wane, it is one thing to be human, and another thing to be just.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
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
“What is needed is an account that is both thin enough to preserve the categorial neutrality of referents of expressions of the form 'a's F-ness,' while at the same time thick enough to enable us to distinguish such referents when they are either in fact distinct (as in the case of Socrates' nature and Socrates' goodness) or merely conceptually distinct (as in the case of God's nature and God's”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.3
plain- 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.
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 second thing to be said is that there are examples, deriving from the broadly medieval metaphysical framework in which the doctrine of divine simplicity is formulated, which lend support to the idea that an expression of a single syntactical type could refer to both accidental tropes and concrete particulars.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- 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 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
“(C1): True (intrinsic) predications of the form “a is F” guarantee the existence of entities (such as God's justice or Socrates' justice) that can be referred to by abstract expressions of the form 'a's F-ness.'”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.3
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“In fact, a thing's nature, as he understands it, just is that which grounds its kind-defi ning powers or capacities.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MacDonald 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- 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
“Thus, Socrates cannot be just solely in virtue of possessing human nature (and hence the distinctive capacities defi nitive of the metaphysical kind human being).”
§ 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.
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
“Truthmakers, however, appear to be the only type of entity that obviously meets both of these conditions.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.3
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“The third and fi nal thing to be said is that, if we help ourselves to one further aspect of the medieval metaphysical framework mentioned above-in particular, a substantive conception of metaphysical kinds standardly adopted by medieval philosophers-we can see why, even in the case of God and creatures, it might seem utt erly unproblematic for expressions of the same syntactic type (e.g., 'a's”
§ 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.
In the paper
“For unlike humanity, God's nature, as Aquinas sees it, is such that its very possession necessitates the actualization of the capacities specifi c to it-which include the capacities for being perfectly just, powerful, good, knowledgeable, wise, and so on.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Aquinas
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- 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 only interpreted in this way can it meet C1 and C2, the two conditions necessary for any coherent interpretation of simplicity.”
§ 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.
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 the end, therefore, there appears to nothing incoherent about saying that both God and creatures are just, despite the fact that God is identical with his justice, whereas creatures are distinct from and only accidentally related to theirs.”
§ 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: 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
“In this paper, I have argued that the doctrine of divine simplicity makes sense if-and apparently only if-we are prepared to interpret it in terms of a truthmaker account of predication.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.4 Conclusion.
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.
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
“From the failure of the constituent interpretation, however, we learn that category neutrality is not suffi cient to make sense of the doctrine.”
§ 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.
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
“On the contrary, in order for him to be just, he must come to actualize certain features of his distinctively human capacities, which will involve the acquisition of certain contingent properties or non-transferable tropes-say, knowledge and virtue.”
§ 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.
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, if we follow TA in inventing abstract nominalizations for their truthmakers, then in the case of claims 4 and 5 we will end up with expressions of a single syntactical type, namely, 'a's heat,' which will refer to entities in both the relevant ontological categories.”
§ Making Sense of Divine Simplicity Making Sense of Divine Simplicity > 4.2 The Truthmaker Interpretation and Abstract Reference.
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.
- 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
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
