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 Brian Leftow argues that God's eternity can be modeled as a timeless 'now' that intersects every temporal moment without being sequenced among them.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
An atemporal 'now' that intersects all moments is conceptually incoherent—intersection requires spatial or temporal relation, which timelessness excludes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God doesn't experience temporal sequence, God cannot perceive genuine causation, change, or narrative—core features of how creation actually unfolds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This model makes divine action mysterious: how does a timeless being causally influence temporal events without itself being in a before-after relation?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A timeless 'now' avoids the problem of God experiencing temporal succession, which would make God subject to time rather than transcendent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
This model preserves God's omniscience: a single eternal vantage point can access all temporal moments without foreknowledge implying determinism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The model respects the intuition that God is genuinely present to all moments, not distant from creation in a way that undermines divine involvement.
?
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.