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 In God's eternal life, each time in its presentness remains and nothing ever ceases to be ET-simultaneous with God's life.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.ET-simultaneity, as defined by Stump and Kretzmann, is non-transitive: if E1 and E2 are both ET-simultaneous with God's life, E1 and E2 need not be mutually simultaneous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If ET-simultaneity is non-transitive, then past events and future events are both 'present' to God, making all temporal moments co-present to each other, which generates contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A relation that entails the co-presentness of mutually exclusive temporal moments cannot coherently ground the claim that 'each time in its presentness remains.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Temporal passage is an objective feature of reality not reducible to relations between events and an observer, as argued by presentists and growing-block theorists like Broad and Tooley.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If temporal passage is observer-independent, then past events genuinely cease to exist regardless of whether they remain ET-simultaneous with an eternal God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim that 'nothing ever ceases to be ET-simultaneous' conflates a relational, epistemic permanence with metaphysical permanence, leaving real temporal passage unexplained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If something ceased to be ET-simultaneous with God's life, that would entail an earlier and a later part simultaneous to God's life, and so temporal succession in God's life.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An eternal life has no earlier and later parts; if it did, it would be temporal, not eternal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore nothing passes in God's eternal life.
      ?

      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.