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
    If all truths are known sub specie aeternitatis, then the... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Not all truths are eternal.

    If all truths are known sub specie aeternitatis, then the appearance of non-eternal truth reflects epistemic limitation, not ontological contingency.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Eternal knowledge requires a perspective outside time; temporal appearance of truth-discovery reflects limited access, not reality's nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If contingency were ontological, an eternal mind would perceive genuine indeterminacy, not merely hidden knowledge—yet omniscience seems incompatible with this.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Our experience of learning truths matches epistemic limitation better than ontological emergence, since facts about the past don't change when we discover them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The argument conflates 'known sub specie aeternitatis' with determinism; timeless knowledge of contingent truths is philosophically coherent without this move.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ontological contingency requires that some truths could genuinely be otherwise; epistemic limitation alone cannot explain why certain possibilities are genuinely closed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If all facts about becoming, change, and temporal sequence are real features of reality, they cannot reduce to mere appearance caused by human limitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Divine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    Eternal knowledge requires a perspective outside time; temporal appearance of tr...If all facts about becoming, change, and temporal sequence are real features of ...If contingency were ontological, an eternal mind would perceive genuine indeterm...Not all truths are eternal.
    +3 moreShow less
    Ontological contingency requires that some truths could genuinely be otherwise; ...Our experience of learning truths matches epistemic limitation better than ontol...The argument conflates 'known sub specie aeternitatis' with determinism; timeles...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit