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
    An omnipotent being who cannot bring about haecceity-depe... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Definition (D3) does not unduly limit the power of an omnipotent agent.

    An omnipotent being who cannot bring about haecceity-dependent states of affairs is genuinely less powerful than one who can, contra the claim that D3 imposes no undue limitation.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Power is the ability to actualize any logically possible state. Haecceity-dependent states are logically possible, so inability to actualize them represents a genuine power limitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If being A can do something being B cannot, A is more powerful than B. A being capable of haecceity-dependent states can do what one incapable of them cannot.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Omnipotence should mean maximal power. Accepting limitations on haecceity-dependent states concedes there exists a coherent power one cannot exercise, contradicting maximality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Haecceity-dependent states may be logically impossible, not merely contingent. If incoherent, inability to actualize them doesn't constitute a power limitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Power is best defined as ability over contingent facts, not modal truths about identity. Inability to violate necessary truths about haecceities isn't a meaningful power deficit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.D3's restriction preserves coherent omnipotence by distinguishing logical possibility from metaphysical realizability. No genuine power gap results from this distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Divine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    D3's restriction preserves coherent omnipotence by distinguishing logical possib...Definition (D3) does not unduly limit the power of an omnipotent agent.Haecceity-dependent states may be logically impossible, not merely contingent. I...If being A can do something being B cannot, A is more powerful than B. A being c...
    +3 moreShow less
    Omnipotence should mean maximal power. Accepting limitations on haecceity-depend...Power is best defined as ability over contingent facts, not modal truths about i...Power is the ability to actualize any logically possible state. Haecceity-depend...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit