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 God can actualize the undoing of past contingent facts, then the modal boundary between 'what was' and 'what cannot be' collapses for good things.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Modal collapse requires conflating metaphysical possibility with metaphysical actuality—distinct categories even for God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A past event's facticity is grounded in what actually happened; God's power over future actualization doesn't alter this status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If God retroactively undoes X, that *becomes* the actual past—preserving rather than collapsing the necessity/contingency distinction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
An omnipotent God has no logical constraints; if past-undoing is logically possible, God can actualize it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God can undo past evils retroactively, the distinction between 'actually occurred' and 'could not occur' loses meaning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Divine timelessness means God exists outside temporal sequence, so 'past' and 'future' are equally present to God's will.
?
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.