Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading 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

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Boethius and Aquinas demonstrate that eternal knowledge of temporal events requires no successive acts of knowing and thus no change in the knower.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If God knows future contingents truly now, this knowledge must causally depend on those future events or constrain them, implying change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Simultaneous knowledge of contradictory temporal events (what will and won't happen) requires either logical incoherence or knowledge-type change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The landscape analogy fails: spatial omniscience doesn't explain how tensed knowledge of 'now it will rain' avoids temporal indexing problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God's knowledge is non-discursive; God perceives all temporal moments in a single eternal act, like seeing an entire landscape at once.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Change in a knower requires temporal succession between different mental states, which eternal timelessness precludes by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Knowing that X occurs at time T doesn't require the knower to exist at T or undergo change; tenseless propositions suffice.
      ?

      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.