Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A less positivistic or naturalistic, more expansive criterion of ontological commitment is appropriate when examining omnipotence.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment—quantifying over entities in our best theories—applies universally, not selectively by domain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Granting theology a privileged exemption from naturalistic ontology introduces an ad hoc double standard that undermines philosophical rigor.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If expanded ontological criteria are permitted for omnipotence, no principled boundary prevents their arbitrary application across all metaphysical disputes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne and others in the analytic theology tradition show omnipotence can be rigorously analyzed within naturalistic modal frameworks without ontological inflation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Invoking 'possible worlds governed by different laws' already presupposes a modal realist or ersatzist framework subject to standard naturalistic scrutiny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Omnipotence has robust theological and metaphysical dimensions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It would be natural to assume that the Supreme Being has the power to create any number of possible worlds governed by different laws of nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An omnipotent agent's power would not be circumscribed by theoretical scientific laws governing the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.