Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading 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

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

A-occurring does not entail B-occurring. — Carmelics

Home/Afterlife & Death

History Edit See Inverse

A-occurring does not entail B-occurring.

Afterlife & Death

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Something can occur now without occurring at a temporal B-location t that is now.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Something can A-occur without B-occurring.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.If A-occurrence just is B-occurrence under a different description, then A-occurring necessarily entails B-occurring.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Boethius and Aquinas both treat eternal 'now' as the ontological ground of temporal 'now', making the two modes co-referential.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Co-referential modes of occurrence cannot be logically separated without equivocating on what 'occurring' means.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

1.Presentism holds that only what exists at the present temporal location genuinely exists or occurs.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.If presentism is true, then any genuine occurrence must be locatable at some temporal B-series position, collapsing A-occurrence into B-occurrence.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.The supporting argument's P1 presupposes a tensed-fact ontology that itself requires defense against presentist rivals like those advanced by Bigelow and Crisp.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Topics

Afterlife & Death

Related

Boethius and Aquinas both treat eternal 'now' as the ontological ground of tempo...Co-referential modes of occurrence cannot be logically separated without equivoc...If A-occurrence just is B-occurrence under a different description, then A-occur...If presentism is true, then any genuine occurrence must be locatable at some tem...

+4 moreShow less

Presentism holds that only what exists at the present temporal location genuinel...Something can A-occur without B-occurring.Something can occur now without occurring at a temporal B-location t that is now...The supporting argument's P1 presupposes a tensed-fact ontology that itself requ...

Similar

B-occurring entails A-occurring.91%Something can A-occur without B-occurring.90%If two events are B-simultaneous and they B-occur, they are A-simultan...76%Something can occur now without occurring at a temporal B-location t t...71%

Source

AI-extracted

View source passageHide passage

Now return to Leftow’s view. Let A-occurring be occurring now, and let B-occurring be occurring at a certain temporal location t that is now. (This is intended to be continuous with McTaggart’s distinction.) B-occurring entails A-occurring: if something occurs at a temporal B-location t that is now, it occurs now. But not vice versa. Something can occur now without occurring at a temporal B-location t that is now. Something can, that is, A-occur without B-occurring. Now define A-simultaneity as occurring “at the same now”. B-simultaneity, by contrast, is having the same temporal B-location in ...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 3 (1 for, 2 against)
Edits: 1 edit