Citations of work:

Jeffrey E. Brower (2008). Making Sense of Divine Simplicity.

7 found
Order:
Are we missing citations?

PhilPapers citations & references are currently in beta testing. We expect to add many more in the future.

Meanwhile, you can use our bibliography tool to import references for this or another work.

Or you can directly add citations for the above work:

  1. Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity, Ontological Independence, and Perfect Being Theology.Caleb M. Cohoe - 2017 - Philosophical Quarterly 67 (269):751-771.
    I use Plotinus to present absolute divine simplicity as the consequence of principles about metaphysical and explanatory priority to which most theists are already committed. I employ Phil Corkum’s account of ontological independence as independent status to present a new interpretation of Plotinus on the dependence of everything on the One. On this reading, if something else (whether an internal part or something external) makes you what you are, then you are ontologically dependent on it. I show that this account (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Divine Perfection and Creation.R. T. Mullins - 2016 - Heythrop Journal 57 (1):122-134.
    Proclus (c.412-485) once offered an argument that Christians took to stand against the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo based on the eternity of the world and God’s perfection. John Philoponus (c.490-570) objected to this on various grounds. Part of this discussion can shed light on contemporary issues in philosophical theology on divine perfection and creation. First I will examine Proclus’ dilemma and John Philoponus’ response. I will argue that Philoponus’ fails to rebut Proclus’ dilemma. The problem is that presentism (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3.  87
    A New Paradox of Omnipotence.Sarah Adams - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (3):759-785.
    In this paper, I argue that the supposition of divine omnipotence entails a contradiction: omnipotence both must and must not be intrinsic to God. Hence, traditional theism must be rejected. To begin, I separate out some theoretical distinctions needed to inform the discussion. I then advance two different arguments for the conclusion that omnipotence must be intrinsic to God; these utilise the notions of essence and aseity. Next, I argue that some necessary conditions on being omnipotent are extrinsic, and that (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  42
    Turtle Epistemology.Evan Fales - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 169 (2):339-354.
    In “Justification Without Awareness”, Michael Bergmann divides internalist epistemologies into those with a strong awareness requirement and those with a weak awareness requirement; he presents a dilemma, hoisting the “strongs” on one horn, and the “weaks” on the other. Here I reply on behalf of the strong-awareness view, presenting what I take to be a more satisfactory, and more fundamental, reply to Bergmann than I believe has been offered by his other critics, and in particular by Rogers and Matheson in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  5.  14
    Divine Properties, Parts, and Parity.Joseph Stenberg - 2014 - International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 75 (5):388-405.
    Christian Platonism and Divine Simplicity remain the most commonly discussed views with respect to the way in which Christians ought to conceive of God’s nature and properties. In this essay, I suggest that we ought to consider seriously two versions of a quite different view, namely, what I call “the Nominalized Composite God View.” Both versions of the Nominalized Composite God View share two features: (1) they treat God as metaphysically composite, in opposition to Divine Simplicity, and (2) they deny (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  37
    Omnirationality.Alexander R. Pruss - 2013 - Res Philosophica 90 (1):1-21.
    God is omnirational: whenever he does anything, he does it for all and only the unexcluded reasons that favor the action, and he always acts for reasons. Thisdoctrine has two unexpected consequences: it gives an account of why it is that unification is a genuine form of scientific explanation, and it answers the question of when the occurrence of E after a petitionary prayer for E is an answer to the prayer.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7.  88
    The Deadlock of Absolute Divine Simplicity.Yann Schmitt - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):117-130.
    In this article, I explain how and why different attempts to defend absolute divine simplicity fail. A proponent of absolute divine simplicity has to explain why different attributions do not suppose a metaphysical complexity in God but just one superproperty, why there is no difference between God and His super-property and finally how a absolute simple entity can be the truthmaker of different intrinsic predications. It does not necessarily lead to a rejection of divine simplicity but it shows that we (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation