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 distinguish between God's absolute power (potentia absoluta) and ordained power, holding creation is radically contingent.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The potentia absoluta/ordinata distinction introduces an incoherent division within God's unified, simple will.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God ordained creation as it is, calling it 'radically contingent' is misleading—it is necessary relative to God's will.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The doctrine generates the problem it solves: if God could have willed differently, his perfection and necessity seem compromised.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God's absolute power must exceed ordained power, else God's omnipotence is logically limited by his own decrees.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Creation's radical contingency preserves human freedom: if creation were necessary, creatures would be determined by God's nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction explains why God can act outside natural laws (miracles) while maintaining creation's rational order.
?
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.