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
    The argument against DDS (Divine Divine Simplicity) requi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The argument against DDS (Divine Divine Simplicity) requires the assumption that if x is perfectly F, then x is F.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The argument against DDS infers from God being perfectly powerful (or perfectly F) that God is powerful (or F).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If this inference is blocked, the objection to DDS collapses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'perfectly F' to 'F' is conceptually necessary: 'perfectly powerful' analytically entails 'powerful' as a proper subset relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Blocking this inference requires denying that superlative predication entails base predication, which collapses ordinary semantic compositionality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aquinas himself concedes analogical predication applies to God, implying divine attributes bear sufficient resemblance to creaturely ones to ground the inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alvin Plantinga's modal objection establishes that DDS requires God's essence = God's existence = God's power, making these terms co-referential but not synonymous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'perfectly powerful' fails to entail 'powerful,' then divine perfection terms become semantically inert, undermining the very theological claims DDS is meant to preserve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The via negativa tradition (Maimonides, pseudo-Dionysius) which motivates blocking such inferences concedes God's attributes are real, not merely nominal, defeating the evasion.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Divine Attributes

    Related

    Alvin Plantinga's modal objection establishes that DDS requires God's essence = ...Aquinas himself concedes analogical predication applies to God, implying divine ...Blocking this inference requires denying that superlative predication entails ba...If 'perfectly powerful' fails to entail 'powerful,' then divine perfection terms...
    +4 moreShow less
    If this inference is blocked, the objection to DDS collapses.The argument against DDS infers from God being perfectly powerful (or perfectly ...The inference from 'perfectly F' to 'F' is conceptually necessary: 'perfectly po...The via negativa tradition (Maimonides, pseudo-Dionysius) which motivates blocki...

    Similar

    The argument against DDS infers from God being perfectly powerful (or ...81%Aquinas's argument has the form: if P then Q; not P; therefore not Q78%Scripture amply supports the claim that God is perfect in knowledge, w...77%We can have good reason to believe something is both X and Y even if w...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: divine-simplicity
    View source passageHide passage
    Since a Plantinga-type approach to ontology rules out DDS from the outset, no sophisticated adherent of the doctrine will adopt such an approach. The DDS defender will embrace an ontology that accommodates an ontologically simple being. Indeed, as Nicholas Wolterstorff (1991) notes, classical proponents of DDS such as Aquinas had a radically different ontological style, one that allowed for the coherent conceivability of DDS. They did not think of individuals as related to their properties as to abstracta external to them, but as having properties as ontological constituents. They, and some at...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit