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 Even if God cannot exist without omniscience, it does not follow that omniscience is not ontologically posterior to God in the order of real definition.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If omniscience is essential to God and constitutive of his perfection, it cannot be posterior in real definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Ontological posteriority typically tracks essential dependence; God essentially depends on omniscience for divinity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing necessity from real definition here invokes an obscure metaphysical distinction without clear justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Necessity of a property does not determine its metaphysical priority in a thing's essence or real definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
God's aseity (self-sufficiency) can ground divine existence logically prior to omniscience as an attribute.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Real definition concerns what a thing fundamentally is, distinct from modal facts about what it 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.