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 both treat eternal 'now' as the ontological ground of temporal 'now', making the two modes co-referential.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If eternal 'now' grounds temporal 'now', they cannot be truly co-referential—the ground and grounded are ontologically distinct by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Boethius and Aquinas use 'now' analogously rather than univocally; temporal 'now' has duration-awareness while eternal 'now' lacks temporal succession entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Co-reference requires shared properties; temporal 'now' involves becoming while eternal 'now' is immutable, making identity claims problematic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Boethius explicitly states God perceives all moments simultaneously in a single eternal present, establishing the logical priority of eternity over time.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aquinas argues temporal succession requires a non-temporal ground; God's eternal 'now' provides this necessary ontological foundation for temporal moments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Co-reference preserves divine omniscience: God knows the same events whether viewed from eternity or temporality, solving the foreknowledge-freedom problem.
?
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.