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 Boethius and Aquinas argue God exists in eternal simultaneity, perceiving all of time at once rather than foreknowing it sequentially.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Eternal simultaneity is conceptually incoherent: 'seeing all at once' imports temporal language that contradicts timelessness itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God perceives future events as present, those events possess determinate truth-values now, which still seems to necessitate them logically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The doctrine lacks explanatory power for how timeless perception relates to causal processes unfolding sequentially in the actual world.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Sequential foreknowledge creates logical contradiction: God would know future free choices before they occur, making them determined rather than free.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Eternal simultaneity preserves both divine omniscience and human freedom by placing God outside temporal succession entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Classical metaphysics requires God's perfection to exclude dependence on time; temporal beings exist in time, but God transcends it.
?
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.