Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The incompatibility objection only defeats versions relying on naive greatness-summing, not modal versions that ground greatness in broadly logical necessity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Modal grounding merely relocates the problem: why should logical necessity determine greatness rather than metaphysical priority?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The incompatibility objection targets greatness-attribution itself, not summation: modal versions still need greatness concepts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Logical necessity is too restrictive: it excludes contingent perfections (love, grace, responsive freedom) from divine attributes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Logical necessity avoids arbitrariness: properties grounded in necessity don't depend on contingent summation procedures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Modal versions can isolate genuine perfections: a property is great iff its absence entails logical impossibility or limitation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Naive summing creates contradictions (omnipotence + immutability); modal grounding dissolves these by non-additive criteria.
?
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.