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 Therefore, a timeless God on B-theory faces no knowledge gap requiring temporal change, since no genuinely irreducible 'now'-facts exist.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Experience seems to present a genuine, irreducible 'now' to consciousness; B-theory's denial conflicts with phenomenological data.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even on B-theory, God must know *which* temporal slice is simultaneous with His knowing—requiring indexical 'now'-facts B-theory excludes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
B-theory still cannot explain why we experience temporal flow if no objective becoming exists; timeless knowledge doesn't resolve this gap.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
B-theory denies ontological status to 'now'; all temporal locations equally real means no privileged present requires explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If no genuine 'now'-facts exist, God needs no temporal consciousness to access truths; static knowledge of the block suffices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Temporal change in God's knowledge presupposes a moving present, which B-theory rejects, so the puzzle dissolves.
?
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.