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
    A limit case of a property is not an instance of that pro... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→God's power is not an instance of power but rather the limit case of power.

    A limit case of a property is not an instance of that property, just as a zero-place predicable is not a predicable.

    Divine Attributes
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Divine Attributes

    Related

    God's power is not an instance of power but rather the limit case of power.God's power is not the maximum, or limit simpliciter, of an ordered series of in...

    Similar

    A zero-place predicable is not a predicable (i.e., it is a limit case ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    89%
    A 1-place predicable is a limit simpliciter of the ordered series of p...80%
    A zero-place predicable has no places, so it does not satisfy the requ...77%
    But everything instantiating properties (being an instance of properti...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: divine-simplicity
    View source passageHide passage
    Vallicella (2016, 379) argues that the move from (a) to (b) smacks of a non sequitur absent some auxiliary premise. Let it be granted arguendo that for each concrete individual x there is a corresponding rich property R. And let it be granted that there are property instances. So, in addition to Socrates and wisdom, there is the wisdom of Socrates. Recall that this property instance is not to be confused with the abstract state of affairs, Socrates’ being wise. From what has been granted it follows that for each x there is the rich property instance, the R-ness of x. But how is it supposed to...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective