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 Newton and Samuel Clarke held that God's eternity is an infinite temporal duration, not atemporal existence, grounding divine precedence in endless time.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Infinite temporal duration faces the same logical problems as finite time: change requires something outside time to measure it against.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God experiences moments sequentially through infinite time, God cannot know future free human choices, undermining omniscience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Temporal infinity remains vulnerable to the paradoxes of infinite series; atemporality avoids these mathematical and logical complications entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God's experience of time as infinite duration better explains how God can causally act in temporal creation without violating physical causation laws.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An atemporal God cannot genuinely respond to prayers or changing circumstances; temporal infinity preserves divine responsiveness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Biblical narratives describe God as acting sequentially (creating, then resting); this language most naturally reflects temporal rather than atemporal existence.
?
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.