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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Richard Swinburne argues that omnipotence is best underst... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Pairs of coexistent God-like omnipotent agents are impossible.

    Richard Swinburne argues that omnipotence is best understood as the power to do anything logically possible for a being of one's nature, not absolute maximal power.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Logical impossibilities are incoherent (e.g., square circles), so requiring their achievement makes omnipotence conceptually incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being's nature legitimately constrains its powers; God's goodness nature prevents doing evil, yet God remains omnipotent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This definition preserves omnipotence's coherence while maintaining it as the maximal power logically available to any being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If omnipotence is limited by nature, then God's nature—not God—becomes the ultimate constraint, challenging divine ultimacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Defining omnipotence relative to 'one's nature' makes it comparative, not absolute; a lesser being with the same nature would be equally omnipotent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Classical theology requires God able to do what creatures cannot; nature-relative omnipotence fails to guarantee this uniqueness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Divine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    A being's nature legitimately constrains its powers; God's goodness nature preve...Classical theology requires God able to do what creatures cannot; nature-relativ...Defining omnipotence relative to 'one's nature' makes it comparative, not absolu...If omnipotence is limited by nature, then God's nature—not God—becomes the ultim...
    +3 moreShow less
    Logical impossibilities are incoherent (e.g., square circles), so requiring thei...Pairs of coexistent God-like omnipotent agents are impossible.This definition preserves omnipotence's coherence while maintaining it as the ma...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit