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 argued that God does not foreknow but rather 'now-knows' all events from an atemporal vantage point.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Atemporality is metaphysically incoherent: timeless existence contradicts the relational nature of knowing, which requires temporal succession.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even if God sees all moments at once, this doesn't solve the problem—God still knows the future will occur, making it seemingly necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The view conflates epistemic access with causal determination without explaining why simultaneous knowledge avoids constraining human choice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If God exists outside time, God perceives all moments simultaneously rather than sequentially, avoiding the logical problem of foreknowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Atemporality preserves human free will since God's knowledge doesn't causally determine future events, only observes them timelessly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This view reconciles omniscience with contingency: God knows what will freely happen without that knowledge making it necessary.
?
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.