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 Classical theism, from Aquinas through Leibniz, holds that divine predicates require pure actuality (actus purus) with no admixture of unrealized potentiality.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Divine knowledge of future contingents seems to require God to not-yet-know them, suggesting unrealized epistemic potential in God's nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If creation was a free divine choice, God possessed the potential to create or not; pure actuality cannot account for this unconstrained agency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Pure actuality without potentiality makes God's will appear determined rather than free, contradicting traditional divine freedom doctrines.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If God has unrealized potential, God could become different, implying present incompleteness incompatible with absolute perfection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Potentiality implies dependence on external conditions to actualize; divine independence requires pure actuality without such dependence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Temporal change requires transition between states; pure actuality avoids this, securing God's eternity and immutability as classical theism requires.
?
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.