Element contents
Series: Elements in the Problems of God
Modelling the Divine
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2025
Summary
There are different approaches to modelling the divine, with each raising questions one needs to consider when employing them to produce a model. Outlining some of the most widely used methods is one of the goals of this Element, providing something of an introductory 'how-to' guide for divine modelling. Through discussing what models are, the different sources of data acquisition, how to acquire data via reason, how to sort data, and what we might think a model provides us with, this Element aims to give readers the resources to take on the task of modelling informatively and effectively for themselves.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in the Problems of GodOnline ISBN: 9781009270991Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 08 January 2026
Bibliography
Abdelnour, M. G. (2023) ‘The Qur’ān and the Future of Islamic Analytic Theology’, Religions 14:556. www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/4/556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, W. (2005) ‘Two Cheers for Mystery!’, in Dole, A., & Chignell, A., eds., God and the Ethics of Belief. Cambridge University Press, pp. 99−114.Google Scholar
Barth, K. (2020) Church Dogmatics I.1 The Doctrine of the Word of God, eds., Bromiley, G. W., & Torrance, T. F.. T&T Clark.Google Scholar
Bishop, J. & Perszyk, K. (2023) God, Purpose and Reality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchak, L. & Zimmerman, D. W. (2022) Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 10. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckareff, A. A. & Nagasawa, Y. (2016) Alternative Concepts of God. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. R. (2019) ‘From a Necessary Being to a Perfect Being’, Analysis 79:10−17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohoe, C. (2013) ‘There Must Be a First’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21:838−856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. L. & Sinclair, J. D. (2009) ‘The kalam Cosmological Argument’, in Craig, W. L., & Moreland, J. P., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 101−201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Haan, D. (2023) ‘Thomist Classical Theism’, in Fuqua, J., & Koons, R. C., eds., Classical Theism. Routledge, pp. 101−122.Google Scholar
Diller, J. & Kasher, A. (2013) Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, A. C. (2022) The Complete Sherlock Holmes Collection. Welbeck Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. D. (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Frigg, R. & Hartmann, S. (2020) ‘Models in Science’, in Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/models-science/.Google Scholar
Gasser, G. & Kittle, S. (2022) The Divine Nature: Personal and A-Personal Perspectives. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hasker, W. (2002) ‘Does God Change?’, in Cahn, S. M., & Shatz, D., eds., Questions About God. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasker, W. (2010) ‘Eternity and Providence’, in Taliaferro, C., & Meister, C., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology. Cambridge University Press, pp. 137−145.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. D. (2015) ‘The Ineffable, Inconceivable, and Incomprehensible God’, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 6:158−176.Google Scholar
Keller, L. J. (2018) ‘Divine Ineffability and Franciscan Knowledge’, Research Philosophica 95:347−370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2000) ‘A Priori Knowledge Revisited’, in Boghossian, P., & Peacocke, C., eds., New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford University Press, pp. 65−91.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2000) ‘A God Beyond Space and Time’, in Varghese, R. A., ed., Theos, Anthropos, Christos. Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 145−172.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2003) ‘Scripture, God, and Time’, 1st Annual Plantinga Fellow Lecture, March 2003, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2004) ‘Anselm’s Perfect Being Theology’, in Davies, B., & Leftow, B., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Anselm. Cambridge University Press, pp. 132−156.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2005a) ‘The Ontological Argument’, in Wainwright, W. J., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press, pp. 80−115.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2005b) ‘Eternity and Immutability’, in Mann, W. E., ed., The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell, pp. 48−77.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2011) ‘Why Perfect Being Theology?’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69:103−118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, B. (2015) ‘Perfection and Possibility’, Faith and Philosophy 32:423−431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, B. (2018a) ‘Perfect Being Theology and Friendship’, in Hazony, Y., & Johnson, D., eds., The Question of God’s Perfection. Brill, pp. 104−110.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2018b) ‘Presentism, Atemporality, and Time’s Way’, Faith and Philosophy 35:173−194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, B. (2019) ‘Infinite Goodness’, in Göcke, B. P., &. Tapp, C., eds., The Infinity of God. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2023) ‘Is Perfect Being Theology Informative?’, Philosophical Quarterly 73:164−183.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2024) ‘Conceivability and Perfect Being Theology’, Religious Studies 60:38−64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, B. (in press) ‘Perfect Beings and Killer Ghosts’, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion.Google Scholar
Maclaurin, J. & Dyke, H. (2012) ‘What Is Analytic Metaphysics For?’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90:291−306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. (2016) ‘Is Theism a Simple Hypothesis?’, Religious Studies 52:45−61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. (2018) ‘The Intrinsic Probability of Theism’, Philosophy Compass 13:1−12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, J. (2019) ‘From a Cosmic Fine-tuner to a Perfect Being’, Analysis 79:449−452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. C. (2021) Divine Holiness and Divine Action. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. C. (2023) ‘Perfect Goodness’, in Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/perfect-goodness/.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Y. (2008) ‘A New Defence of Anselmian Theism’, Philosophical Quarterly 58:577−596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocampo, S. T. (2024) ‘Strategies for Stage II of Cosmological Arguments’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 96:55−88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, T. & Montgomery, N. (2013) ‘Review: Writing the Book of the World’, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/writing-the-book-of-the-world/.Google Scholar
Oderberg, D. S. (2022) ‘Restoring the Hierarchy of Being’, in Simpson, W. M. R., Koons, R. C., & Orr, J., eds., Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics and the Theology of Nature. Routledge, pp. 94−124.Google Scholar
Page, B. (2019) ‘Wherein Lies the Debate? Concerning Whether God Is a Person’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 93:169−188.Google Scholar
Page, B. (2023a) ‘The Creation Objection against Timelessness Fails’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 85:297−317.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1990) ‘True Contradictions’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20:335−353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. A. (2012) ‘Metaphysics as Modelling’, Philosophical Studies 160:1−29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawl, T. (2019) In Defence of Extended Conciliar Christology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawl, T. (2020) ‘Conciliar Trinitarianism, Divine Identity Claims, and Subordination’, TheoLogica 4:102−128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quoteresearch (2015) ‘Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime’, Quote Investigator. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/28/fish/.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. (2010) ‘Cosmological Arguments from Contingency’, Philosophy Compass 5:806−819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J. (2020) ‘An Argument for a Supreme Foundation’, in Rasmussen, J., & Vallier, K., eds., A New Theist Response to the New Atheists. Routledge, pp. 21−32.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. (2024) ‘God and Fundamentality’, in Szatkowski, M., ed., Ontology of Divinity. de Gruyter, pp. 319−331.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. & Leon, P. (2019) Is God the Best Explanation of Things? Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, G. (2010) ‘Metaphysical Dependence’, in Hale, B., & Hoffmann, A., eds., Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford University Press, pp. 109−136.Google Scholar
Rubio, D. (2025) ‘Intrinsically Good God Created Them’, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 11:113−138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speaks, J. (2014) ‘The Method of Perfect Being Theology’, Faith and Philosophy 31:256−266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2016) The Coherence of Theism, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallant, J. & Ingram, D. (2021) ‘The Rotten Core of Presentism’, Synthese 199:3969−3991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomasson, A. L. (2020) ‘If Models Were Fictions, Then What Would They Be?’, in Levy, A., & Godfrey-Smith, P., eds., The Scientific Imagination. Oxford University Press, pp. 51−74.Google Scholar
van Frassen, B. (1985) ‘Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science’, in Churchland, P., & Hooker, C., eds., Images of Science. University of Chicago Press, pp. 245−308.Google Scholar
Weisberg, M. (2016) ‘Modelling’, in Cappelen, H., Gendler, H. S., & Hawthorne, J., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology. Oxford University Press, pp. 262−286.Google Scholar
Wood, W. (2021) Analytic Theology and the Academic Study of Religion. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarepour, M. S. (2022) Necessary Existence and Monotheism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this Element
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.