Edwards' comparison conflates the logical grammar of 'infinite difference' with 'no difference,' an equivocation Kant would later identify as a misuse of regulative ideas as constitutive claims.

?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.

Constitutive claims(contrasted with regulative ideas as a misuse of them): Statements that assert something actually exists or is real, rather than just being a useful thought tool.
Edwards(as a philosopher who built on occasionalism): Jonathan Edwards, an 18th-century American philosopher and theologian who developed ideas based on Malebranche's theory about how God relates to human action.
Equivocation(Lewis diagnoses the ontological argument as equivocating on 'a being than which nothing greater can be conceived is possible'.): A fallacy in which a key term or phrase is used in two different senses within the same argument, making an invalid inference appear valid.
Infinite difference(one of the concepts being compared): A gap or distinction so large that it's without limit or boundary—like the difference between God and humans in Edwards' thinking.

Based on where you are in your exploration