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 Universalists like Thomas Talbott argue divine love is logically incompatible with accepting any creature's permanent self-destruction as a final outcome.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Respecting libertarian free will may require accepting that some creatures could eternally reject salvation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Love compatible with justice might permit consequences for persistent rebellion, including separation from God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Logical compatibility between divine attributes doesn't entail every logically possible outcome occurs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
An omnipotent being can achieve any goal, including universal reconciliation, without logical contradiction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Perfect love necessarily wills the good of the beloved; permanent destruction contradicts willing anyone's ultimate good.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Allowing permanent loss of a creature one loves and could save is incompatible with maximal love.
?
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.