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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The argument against DDS (Divine Divine Simplicity) requires the assumption that if x is perfectly F, then x is F.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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