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 omnipotence is coherently defined as 'power to do all logically possible things,' then God's inability to coerce free agents is no limitation at all.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The definition smuggles in constraints: calling something 'logically impossible' to avoid the coercion problem just restates the difficulty rather than solving it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God can't actualize all states of affairs that beings can conceive (free obedience), omnipotence seems limited regardless of logical vocabulary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Classical omnipotence meant power over actuality itself; restricting it to 'logical possibility' fundamentally changes what omnipotence claims to be.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Logical possibility is constrained by the laws of logic, not external limits; coercing free choices violates logical coherence itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Omnipotence means maximal power within coherence; inability to perform incoherent acts doesn't reduce power, just defines its proper scope.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A free agent's choice cannot simultaneously be both freely chosen and coerced—this is a conceptual impossibility, not a power limitation.
?
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.