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 God's omniscience, unlike a set, is not composed of God as a constituent element but is classically identified as a divine perfection co-eternal with God.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The claim that omniscience is 'not composed of God' yet 'co-eternal with God' appears to assert non-composition without explaining their unity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If omniscience is truly distinct from God's essence, it becomes a property God possesses rather than an intrinsic perfection, reintroducing composition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Calling something a 'divine perfection' without explaining how it differs from ordinary divine attributes merely relocates rather than solves the metaphysical problem.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Classical theism distinguishes divine attributes from divine substance to avoid treating God as composite or dependent on parts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Co-eternality preserves God's necessity: omniscience existing timelessly with God avoids the problem of God acquiring knowledge sequentially.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Perfections as distinct-yet-inseparable from God's essence avoid reducing divine knowledge to a mere possessing of information-objects.
?
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.