If any state of affairs is agent-essentially producible rather than repeatable across agents, D3 systematically misrepresents the scope of omnipotent power by excluding it from the domain.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

D3(Platonic argumentation structure): A deductive sequence of arguments (distinct from D1 and D2) that establishes properties of 'the others' given that 'the one is', without reliance on Purity-F.
agent-essentially producible(as used in philosophy of action): Something that can only be created or brought about by a specific person or agent, rather than being something that could be produced the same way by anyone.
domain(Both f1 and f2 have the reals as their domain): The set of input values over which a function is defined.
omnipotent power(as used in philosophy of religion): The ability to do absolutely anything that is logically possible—having unlimited power with no restrictions.
repeatable across agents(as used in philosophy of action): An action or result that different people can produce in the same way—if one person can do it, anyone else can do it too in basically the same manner.
state of affairs(Chisholm 1970): A genus of which both events and facts are treated as species, used to capture their close ontological kinship without fully identifying them.
systematically misrepresents(the republican analogy fails to show the true nature of women's condition): Continuously and by its very nature gives an inaccurate or false picture—the problem is built into the system itself, not just an occasional mistake.

1 topic