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 trade-off model presupposes attributes are separable modules, which classical theism's doctrine of divine simplicity explicitly rejects.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Conceptual distinctness of attributes (how we understand them) doesn't require metaphysical separability (how they actually are in God).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Trade-offs apply to how omnipotence manifests in creation, not to God's essence itself—avoiding conflict with divine simplicity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Many classical theists accept both divine simplicity and that God's omnipotence is voluntarily self-limited, resolving apparent tensions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Divine simplicity entails God's attributes are identical to His essence, making them non-distinct properties rather than separable modules.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Trade-off models (e.g., omnipotence vs. benevolence constraints) logically require attributes to function as independent variables that can vary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If attributes are truly inseparable in God, trade-offs between them become incoherent—one cannot constrain what is identical to one's being.
?
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.