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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • The difficulties with ET-simultaneity arise whether it is two-place or three-place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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