Religious Studies 27 (4):485-497 (1991)

What sorts of things are there in the world? Clearly enough, there are concrete, material things; but are there other things too, perhaps nonconcrete or non-material things? Some people believe that there are such things, which are often called abstract ; purported examples of such objects include numbers, properties, possible but non-actual states of affairs, propositions, and sets. Following a long-standing tradition, I shall describe persons who believe that there are abstract objects as ‘platonists’. In this paper, I shall not directly address the plausibility of platonism, as compared with its rivals; instead, I shall confine my attention to one way in which some people have tried to combine platonism and theism. More specifically, I shall concentrate upon the claim that abstract objects depend upon God ontologically ; I shall argue that platonistic theists should reject DEP in favour of the claim that abstract objects exist independently of God . In order to evaluate the relative merits of DEP versus IND, it will be helpful to examine in some detail a particular articulation of DEP. When it comes to recent work on DEP, we can do no better in this regard than to examine the recent work of Thomas V. Morris and Christopher H. Menzel. According Morris and Menzel, there is a sense in which God literally creates such abstracta through engaging in intellective activities
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S003441250002120X
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,360
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

An Essay on Free Will.Peter Van Inwagen - 1983 - Oxford University Press.
Absolute Creation.Thomas V. Morris & Christopher Menzel - 1986 - American Philosophical Quarterly 23 (4):353 - 362.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Divine Command Theory and Theistic Activism.Simin Rahimi - 2012 - Heythrop Journal 53 (4):551-559.
Middle Actions.A. A. Howsepian - 1993 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 34 (1):13 - 28.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Problems with the Bootstrapping Objection to Theistic Activism.Christopher Menzel - 2016 - American Philosophical Quarterly 53 (1):55-68.
Could Abstract Objects Depend Upon God?Scott A. Davison - 1991 - Religious Studies 27 (4):485 - 497.
Thing and Object.Kristie Miller - 2008 - Acta Analytica 23 (1):69-89.
Awareness of Abstract Objects.Elijah Chudnoff - 2013 - Noûs 47 (4):706-726.
Who is Afraid of Imaginary Objects?Gabriele Contessa - 2009 - In Nicholas Griffin & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Russell Vs. Meinong: The Legacy of "On Denoting". Routledge.
Composite Objects and the Abstract/Concrete Distinction.Daniel A. Kaufman - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Research 27:215-238.
Why Are Platonists so Insouciant?William Lane Craig - 2011 - Philosophy 86 (2):213-229.
Dummett on Abstract Objects.George Duke - 2012 - Palgrave-Macmillan.
Destroying Artworks.Marcus Rossberg - 2013 - In Christy Mag Uidhir (ed.), Art & Abstract Objects. Oxford University Press.
Ficta Versus Possibilia.Alberto Voltolini - 1994 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 48 (1):75-104.


Added to PP index

Total views
38 ( #283,426 of 2,448,900 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #299,896 of 2,448,900 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes