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 Apparent logical inconsistency may dissolve under semantic revision: 'omnipotence' need not entail the ability to override libertarian free will.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Redefining omnipotence to exclude override capacity weakens the traditional theological concept and appears motivated by apologetic convenience rather than principled analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If libertarian free will exists, an omnipotent being could create beings without it; choosing not to is a self-imposed limitation, not a logical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Semantic revision risks making 'omnipotence' vacuous—if we narrow it enough to avoid all contradictions, it becomes compatible with any degree of actual power.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Omnipotence logically means power over all possible states; violating libertarian free will is metaphysically impossible, not a power limitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Semantic revision is legitimate when it resolves genuine contradictions without abandoning core conceptual commitments about divine power.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A being cannot coherently exercise power over another's free choice without that choice ceasing to be free—so this 'inability' reflects logical necessity, not weakness.
      ?

      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.