No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
My aim in this essay is to elucidate in a certain way the concept of God. I shall begin with several brief remarks in clarification of this aim and the terminology I shall employ in pursuing it.
page 63 note 1 The notion of something which is SH is, of course, modelled upon the definition of God provided by Anselm in Proslogion, chap. 2. A similar notion forms the basis of J. N. Findlay's famous argument against the existence of God in his paper ‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’, Mind, lvii (1948).Google Scholar (This essay is reprinted in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. Flew, A. and MacIntyre, A. [New York, 1955];Google Scholar a re-written version of it is contained in Findlay's Values and Intentions [London, 1961]Google Scholar, chap. 9.) Though I thought I had invented it, I recently discovered (or perhaps rediscovered) the phrase ‘natural adjunct’ in Smart, N., Reasons and Faiths (New York, 1959);Google Scholar the definition I have given to the phrase, in any case, is my own. It will be obvious to readers of Anselm, Findlay and Smart that my indebtedness to them in the present paper is considerable. I shall not, however, undertake the tedious and nugatory task of pinpointing the similarities and differences between what I say and what they say.