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 defined by possible states of affairs, then a being that passively enables all such states counts as omnipotent, which is absurd.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Passively enabling all states requires supreme metaphysical status—limiting nothing contradicts any finite being.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between 'passive enabling' and 'active power' may be conceptually unstable or incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Omnipotence could coherently mean maximizing capacity for any state, regardless of whether exercised actively.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Omnipotence requires active causal power, not mere passive compatibility with all possibilities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A being that does nothing deserves no more credit than abstract logical space itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
True power involves constraining possibilities through choice, distinguishing agents from mere potentiality.
?
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.