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
    The supreme essence cannot exist as a whole in individual... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The supreme essence cannot exist as a whole in individual times severally and distinctly.

    Afterlife & Death
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If the supreme essence exists as a whole in individual times severally and distinctly, then its time-span is not simultaneously a whole but is stretched out in parts through the parts of time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The time-span of the supreme essence is its eternity, and its eternity is precisely itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the supreme essence would be cut up into parts along the divisions of time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Temporal omnipresence is compatible with unity: God can be wholly present at each moment without being divided, as Aquinas argues in Summa Theologiae I.10.2.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A thing present in its entirety at multiple locations or times need not thereby be fragmented, as universals are wholly instantiated in many particulars without loss of unity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument illicitly assumes that existing 'in' time entails being 'composed of' temporal parts, a conflation Boethius himself does not establish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An eternal being could relate to each temporal moment indexically and wholly, as open theists like William Hasker argue, without its essence being temporally extended or divided.
      ?

      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 thing present in its entirety at multiple locations or times need not thereby ...An eternal being could relate to each temporal moment indexically and wholly, as...If the supreme essence exists as a whole in individual times severally and disti...Temporal omnipresence is compatible with unity: God can be wholly present at eac...
    +4 moreShow less
    The argument illicitly assumes that existing 'in' time entails being 'composed o...The supreme essence cannot be cut up into parts.The time-span of the supreme essence is its eternity, and its eternity is precis...Therefore, the supreme essence would be cut up into parts along the divisions of...

    Similar

    If the supreme essence exists as a whole in individual times severally...90%The supreme essence cannot be cut up into parts.83%Therefore, the supreme essence would be cut up into parts along the di...81%The time-span of the supreme essence is its eternity, and its eternity...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: eternity
    View source passageHide passage
    Suppose, on the other hand, that it exists as a whole in individual times severally and distinctly. (A human being, for instance, exists as a whole yesterday, today and tomorrow.) In this case we should, properly, say that it was, is and will be. In which case its time-span is not simultaneously a whole. Rather it is stretched out in parts through the parts of time. But its time-span is its eternity and its eternity is precisely itself. The supreme essence, therefore, would be cut up into parts along the divisions of time. (Anselm, Monologion, Ch. 21)

    Details

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