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 Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann's ET-simultaneity relation makes eternal and temporal events co-present without requiring temporal ordering.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
ET-simultaneity is poorly defined: the relation either collapses into standard simultaneity or remains too metaphysically obscure to explain anything.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Preserving libertarian freedom still requires temporal events to be genuinely open; a timeless perspective cannot make contingent facts genuinely contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The framework avoids rather than solves the core problem: explaining how timeless knowledge of future events avoids entailing those events' necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Divine omniscience requires God to perceive all events simultaneously; ET-simultaneity provides a coherent framework for this without logical contradiction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Standard temporal ordering creates an asymmetry problem: why would God experience some events before others if God is atemporal? ET-simultaneity resolves this.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The relation preserves human libertarian freedom by avoiding the determinism entailed by simple foreknowledge without requiring temporal succession.
?
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.