Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aquinas and the scholastic tradition define omnipotence through the ratio of active power, not correspondence to possible worlds or propositions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Defining omnipotence by active power alone risks circularity: what counts as 'power' depends on prior metaphysical commitments.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Active power reflects God's intrinsic nature better than abstract possible worlds, which are mind-independent logical constructs.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.