Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading 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

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

Stump and Kretzmann's emphasis that simultaneity is a thr... — Carmelics

Home/Afterlife & Death

History Edit See Inverse

Stump and Kretzmann's emphasis that simultaneity is a three-place relation does not resolve the difficulties with ET-simultaneity.

Afterlife & Death

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

2 reasons for

1 reason against

Reasons For

2 perspectives

Reason for 1 of 2

?

1.Making simultaneity three-place requires a cross-categorical relation between temporal and atemporal entities, which lacks coherent formal definition.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Brian Leftow's analysis shows ET-simultaneity fails to satisfy transitivity even as a three-place relation, preserving the original incoherence.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.A relation that cannot be specified without equivocating on 'present' across modes of existence inherits, not dissolves, the original conceptual problem.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason for 2 of 2

?

1.Stump and Kretzmann's three-place formulation still requires that an eternal entity and a temporal entity share some common 'now', which presupposes temporal location for the eternal entity.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Paul Helm argues that any simultaneity relation strong enough to ground divine knowledge of temporal events collapses eternity into sempiternity, regardless of its adicity.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

?

The difficulties with ET-simultaneity arise whether it is two-place or three-place.
?
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.

Topics

Afterlife & Death

Related

A relation that cannot be specified without equivocating on 'present' across mod...Brian Leftow's analysis shows ET-simultaneity fails to satisfy transitivity even...Making simultaneity three-place requires a cross-categorical relation between te...Paul Helm argues that any simultaneity relation strong enough to ground divine k...

+2 moreShow less

Stump and Kretzmann's three-place formulation still requires that an eternal ent...The difficulties with ET-simultaneity arise whether it is two-place or three-pla...

Similar

The difficulties with ET-simultaneity arise whether it is two-place or...91%B-simultaneity is having the same temporal B-location in some B-series...84%ET-simultaneity is not reflexive.82%Therefore, ET-simultaneity never holds between an entity and itself.82%

Source

AI-extracted

View source passageHide passage

Third, what role, if any, is special relativity playing in the proposal? The intended role is a considerable one. Considerations of the relativity of simultaneity are supposed to show that the difficulties with the notion of ET-simultaneity are “by no means unique” and “cannot be assumed to be difficulties in the concepts of ET-simultaneity or of eternity themselves” (S&K 1981: 439). But it is hard to see how they could show this. Stump and Kretzmann emphasize the finding that simultaneity is a three-place relation and present it as a response to a threat of incoherence (two distant events...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 3 (2 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit