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 God and all spatial things share a reference frame—the reference frame of eternity—in which nothing changes and all events are simultaneous, including God's actions and their effects.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Simultaneity is a frame-relative relation requiring a shared metric structure, which eternity—as atemporal—cannot provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If eternity lacks temporal extension, it cannot function as a reference frame in any sense analogous to relativistic spacetime frames.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, calling all events 'simultaneous' in eternity equivocates between temporal simultaneity and mere co-presence, undermining the claim's coherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Boethius and Aquinas define eternity as the complete, simultaneous possession of life—a definition that entails no succession, not a shared frame with temporal things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's eternity is strictly non-successive, then God and temporal creatures cannot occupy a common reference frame without reintroducing succession into eternity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann's ET-simultaneity relation, designed to bridge this gap, has been shown by critics like Paul Fitzgerald to be non-transitive and thus not a genuine equivalence relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There is no change with respect to God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If there is no change with respect to God, then God and all spatial things share a frame of reference (the reference frame of eternity) in which nothing changes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In this reference frame, all events occur at eternity, and eternity is something like another time, so they are all simultaneous.
      ?

      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.