On Which 'God' Should Be the Target of a 'Proof of God's Existence'

The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 8:75-80 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Philosophers of religion debate what is meant by the word 'God,' in the conclusion of proofs of God's existence. If'God' is a proper name, there seems to be no good proof that a non-empirical entity has this name. If it is a common name, it seems that it must mean what classical theists mean by 'God' - and the existence of such a being is hard to prove. I defend a third possibility: that 'God' names a common name that is the least prescriptive possible, while being sufficient to signify one kind of thing different from all others.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 80,022

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

96 (#138,213)

6 months
3 (#241,957)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Twetten
Marquette University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references