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 argued that relations between God and creation are real on creation's side but purely logical on God's side, requiring no change in God.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If God loves creation, this love appears to be a real divine act; calling it 'merely logical' seems to evacuate it of genuine content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The asymmetry claim fails: the artist-painting analogy involves temporal sequence, but God's eternal knowledge of creation seems to require real relational facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A purely logical relation in God suggests creation is somehow less real or less genuinely known by God, which conflicts with divine omniscience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God's immutability is a core attribute; any real relational change in God would compromise His perfection and timelessness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Creation-side reality of relations explains God's genuine responsiveness to prayer without requiring metaphysical change in God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Relations can be asymmetrically real: a painting is really related to its artist, but the artist's being need not change thereby.
?
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.