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 God is immaterial and eternal (has no material or temporal parts).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Process theology (Whitehead, Hartshorne) holds that God is genuinely temporal, experiencing the world sequentially as it becomes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A God who lacks temporal parts cannot be genuinely responsive to creaturely events, undermining classical theism's relational claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If divine responsiveness is incoherent on the immutability model, the doctrine of impassibility entails a God less perfect than a responsive one.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
The Incarnation, central to Christian orthodoxy, commits Chalcedonian theology to Christ having material and temporal parts as fully human.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the Son is homoousios with the Father yet genuinely material and temporal in the Incarnation, divine immateriality cannot be an essential divine attribute.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God is simple.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A simple being cannot have parts, including material or temporal parts.
?
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.