Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that P3 misconstrues the relevant counterfactual by assuming necessary truths are metaphysically independent of divine will.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Necessary truths (like logical laws) can be independent of divine will without limiting omnipotence—omnipotence needn't include logical impossibilities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
God's omnipotence is coherently defined as maximal power consistent with logic, not power to violate logical necessity itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Assuming divine will determines necessity creates paradoxes (Can God make contradictions true?) that the independence view elegantly avoids.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If necessary truths are independent of divine will, God cannot determine logical laws, making divinity subject to external constraints.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Classical theism requires God's omnipotence, which entails power over all truths, including necessary ones.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The counterfactual assumes a distinction between divine will and necessity that undermines God's absolute metaphysical supremacy.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42