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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Flint and Freddoso's account of omnipotence does not provide a logically necessary condition on omnipotence.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Flint and Freddoso's account is intended as a sufficient condition for omnipotence, not a necessary one, so the counterexample attacks a burden of proof the account never assumed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A definition can be theoretically adequate by specifying what suffices for omnipotence without also capturing every necessary condition, as Aquinas's power-based accounts similarly proceed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The world-type framework individuates an agent's power relative to histories, so Oscar's world-type in W already encodes his omnipotence, making (e) properly excluded rather than an overlooked lacuna.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the world-type-for-Oscar in W reflects Oscar's omnipotence at t, then (e) belongs to no achievable extension of that type, and Flint and Freddoso's account correctly withholds the power rather than mistakenly attributing it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A non-omnipotent agent can actualize (e)—bringing it about that a snowflake falls when no omnipotent agent ever exists—but an omnipotent agent cannot actualize (e), since an omnipotent agent cannot bring it about that no omnipotent agent ever exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There are possible worlds W and W* sharing the same history up to time t, where no omnipotent agent ever exists in W*, and a contingently omnipotent agent Oscar is omnipotent for the first time at t in W.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In W*, at t some non-omnipotent agent actualizes (e), but in W, Oscar at t cannot actualize (e).
      ?

      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.