Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T20:58:07.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Concept of God

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

R. C. Coburn
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Chicago

Extract

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.