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 If divine responsiveness is incoherent on the immutability model, the doctrine of impassibility entails a God less perfect than a responsive one.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Responsiveness may not be a perfection; a God who changes in response to creatures might be metaphysically dependent or reactive rather than truly sovereign.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Immutability needn't entail unresponsiveness; God could timelessly know and eternally account for all contingencies without temporal change.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Impassibility may reflect God's higher perfection—freedom from emotional vulnerability, neediness, or external influence that limits finite beings.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Responsiveness to creatures' needs and prayers is a genuine perfection, reflecting God's active care and relational excellence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Immutability and impassibility together logically preclude God from genuinely responding to contingent events, making responsiveness impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A God who cannot respond is less perfect than one who can, since responsive capacity enables greater relational and moral goodness.
?
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.