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 Considering the nature of eternity will make clear both the nature of God and his manner of knowing.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Divine ineffability, as defended by Maimonides and Pseudo-Dionysius, entails that God's nature cannot be positively disclosed through any creaturely concept.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Eternity, as a concept derived from creaturely temporal experience, is a creaturely concept applied analogically at best.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Therefore, analyzing 'eternity' cannot make God's nature or knowledge clear, but only gestures toward what God is not.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Boethius's definition of eternity as 'simultaneous whole possession' presupposes a tenseless, static ontology of time that is philosophically contested.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If presentism or the A-theory of time is correct, then 'simultaneous possession of all moments' is incoherent, undermining the definition's capacity to illuminate divine knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God is eternal.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Eternity is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life.
?
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.