Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Occasionalism (Malebranche) and concurrentism (Aquinas, Suárez) both deny that divine volition alone is causally sufficient, requiring either creature cooperation or secondary causes.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If divine volition is not causally sufficient, God's omnipotence is limited by dependence on creature cooperation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Secondary causes either reduce to divine action anyway or introduce unexplained entities, violating parsimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both views struggle to explain how finite creature powers interact with infinite divine power without contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If creatures have no causal powers, divine omnipotence becomes compatible with genuine human agency and moral responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Secondary causes preserve creature dignity by affirming their real participation in cosmic order, not mere divine puppetry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying creature causation avoids the logical problem of how one agent's will can determine another's free choices.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42