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
    Before one can affirm a proposition as true one must unde... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A proposition that appears to be or entail a contradiction may not actually be a proposition at all.

    Before one can affirm a proposition as true one must understand it, but one cannot affirm as true a proposition that appears necessarily false.

    Divine Attributes
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Divine Attributes

    Related

    A proposition that appears to be or entail a contradiction may not actually be a...If a proposition appears under careful scrutiny to be or entail a contradiction,...

    Similar

    It is logically impossible to know of a proposition that it is true or...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    85%
    Infallibility requires that necessarily any proposition the being beli...84%
    A proposition that appears to be or entail a contradiction may not act...83%
    Necessarily false propositions are arguably not possible objects of be...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: divine-simplicity
    View source passageHide passage
    And so a mysterian move suggests itself: We are justified in maintaining both that God is simple and that God is free despite the fact that after protracted effort we cannot make logical sense of this conjunction. If we have good arguments for both limbs of what appears to be a logically contradictory dyad, it could be that the contradiction is merely apparent. The fact that the conjunction — God is simple and God is free — appears to us, and perhaps even necessarily appears to us, to be or rather entail an explicit logical contradiction is not a compelling reason to reject the conjunction. It...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective