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 Asymmetric dependence requires numerical distinctness between relata, which the doctrine of divine simplicity explicitly denies.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Asymmetric dependence may require only conceptual or logical distinctness, not numerical distinctness—these are separable notions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Divine simplicity defenders argue God's properties are identical-without-distinction, allowing asymmetry despite lack of numerical multiplicity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument conflates dependence relations with the ontological status of relata; identity doesn't entail symmetric dependence relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Asymmetric dependence (A depends on B, but not vice versa) logically requires A and B to be distinct entities with different modal profiles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Divine simplicity entails God's identity with all His attributes, making numerical distinctness between God and His properties impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If God and creation are not numerically distinct, creation cannot asymmetrically depend on God without God equally depending on creation.
?
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.