Switch to: References

Citations of:

Semantics for Blasphemy

Meghan Sullivan

In Jonathan L. Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion Volume. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2010)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

The Reference of “God” Revisited.Hugh Burling - 2019 - Faith and Philosophy 36 (3):343-371.details I argue that the reference for “God” is determined by the definite description “the being that is worthy of our worship.” I describe two desiderata for rival theories of the reference of “God” to meet: accessibility and scope. I explain the deficiencies of a view where God is dubbed “God” and the name passed down by causal chains and a view where “God” picks out the unique satisfier of a traditional definite description. After articulating the “Worship-Worthiness” view, I show how (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 4 citations
Freedom, God, and worlds.Michael J. Almeida - 2012 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.details Michael J. Almeida presents a bold new defence of the existence of God. He argues that entrenched principles in philosophical theology which have served as basic assumptions in apriori, atheological arguments are in fact philosophical dogmas. Almeida argues that not only are such principles false - they are necessarily false. Download Export citation Bookmark 6 citations
'God' the name.Earl Stanley Bragado Fronda - 2020 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 12 (1):91.details The word ‘God’ is typically thought to be a proper name, a name of a defined entity. From another position it appears to be a description that is fundamentally synonymous to ‘the first of all causes’, or ‘the font et origo of the structure of possibilities’, or ‘the provenience of being’, or ‘the generator of existence’. This lends credence to the view that ‘God’ is a truncated definite description. However, this article proposes that ‘God’ is a name given to whatever (...) Download Export citation Bookmark
¿Nos referimos a Dios directa o indirectamente?Layla Mayorga - 2021 - Análisis 30:115-123.details Referring to ‘God,’ either directly or indirectly, has been problematic since God is obviously not reducible to a simple description. We assume that ‘God’ can refer to something but finding which mechanism is most promising will help us figure out how we can refer to Him successfully. I argue that the causal theory of reference, with Meghan Sullivan’s theory of semantic inspiration, and the everyday judgments of ‘God’ lead us to conclude that the reference to God is direct. Download Export citation Bookmark

1