Which is your preferred model of omnipotence /his/? That of René Descartes or that of Thomas Aquinas?I usually prefer Descartes' writings to nearly any other philosopher's but I think Aquinas has this one rightQuick vid on the differences and which model seems to be correct: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HZal99fwki4
>>16549237The "could have been different" always bothered me; we operate in a reality in which, according to Descartes, the Laws of Logic came from the same referent, and yet the lil' nigga said : "but, y'know, what if it were different". For a guy supposedly claiming to want to dismiss his own preconceived notion, the idea of a possibly non-existent referent which is refered to by nothing in this world sounds PRETTY DAMN RETARDED. It would be like trying to ascribe attributes to "No Thing". wtf
>>16549284>It would be like trying to ascribe attributes to "No Thing"Weirdly if you go super deep into Divine Simplicity this is almost what it becomes I wonder if it's his Catholicism creeping into his ideas too much since they have some very strange notions about God once you dig really deep into it
>>16549284>but, y'know, what if it were differentIsn't that part of it if your goal is to question EVERYTHING like his was?
>>16550216yeah, EVERYTHING. this "COULD HAVE BEEN" in this is as referred to as "NO THING" is in our world, which is to say, unreferred, which makes it inherently ireferrable in the "de re" context of the statement : "Question everything."
>>16550361Could some things be areferential
>>16549237I think Aquinas is right-er, but on the other hand the bible is clearly supporting a cartesian variant, with god ALL things are possible, he could turn these stones into sons of Abraham etc.
>>16549429that negative style is also found in buddhism, and it is bullshit in either case. you can see that it is just a wriggle-out-of-difficulties tactics when you talk to other users of it, like when explicit consent was a big thing with feminists and I kept asking them how would it look like in reality and they kept screaming "it means you don't just go and fuck her without obtaining consent". glorifying it with giving it a name is not going to help either.
>>16550991wouldn't that be the equivalent of saying "couldn't there be a transcendent concept known as xghdtjbiifftbnk?"It's an exercise in futility, and unproveable, either physically or logically; so why fucking bother
Gotta go with the definition that excludes illogical actions. Also, sorry for taking too long to reply >>16551008. I slept. I opened a new thread >>16553442.
>>16549237Thomistic, of course. Otherwise the problem of evil becomes unrefutable.
>Generally preferred by philosophersAre there any philosophers who aren't philosophers of/of a religion who hold Aquinas'. view. I'd be interested in how they defend it.
