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
    Aquinas and the scholastic tradition define omnipotence t... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Omnipotence should be analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs, understood as propositional entities which either obtain or fail to obtain.

    Aquinas and the scholastic tradition define omnipotence through the ratio of active power, not correspondence to possible worlds or propositions.

    ?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.Active power reflects God's intrinsic nature better than abstract possible worlds, which are mind-independent logical constructs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scholastic omnipotence avoids the incoherence problem: God need not actualize logical contradictions to remain omnipotent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Medieval metaphysics grounds omnipotence in substance and act, not modern modal logic that post-dates Aquinas by centuries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Defining omnipotence by active power alone risks circularity: what counts as 'power' depends on prior metaphysical commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Possible worlds semantics better explains modal intuitions about God's freedom—why He could have created differently than He did.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The scholastic account struggles to address whether God can do what is genuinely logically impossible without begging the question.
      ?

      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

    Active power reflects God's intrinsic nature better than abstract possible world...Defining omnipotence by active power alone risks circularity: what counts as 'po...Medieval metaphysics grounds omnipotence in substance and act, not modern modal ...Omnipotence should be analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain poss...
    +3 moreShow less
    Possible worlds semantics better explains modal intuitions about God's freedom—w...Scholastic omnipotence avoids the incoherence problem: God need not actualize lo...The scholastic account struggles to address whether God can do what is genuinely...

    Details

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