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, divine simplicity does not strictly entail timelessness, but only the absence of composition in God's nature.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If God exists in time, His being at t1 differs from being at t2, creating composition between temporal stages—contradicting strict simplicity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Temporal existence requires potentiality (what God could do next), but divine simplicity entails pure actuality, not potential becoming.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Any temporal God must relate differently to past, present, and future events, introducing real internal distinctions that violate simplicity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Composition and temporal succession are distinct metaphysical properties; lack of parts doesn't logically require timelessness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
God could be temporally extended yet internally simple if His temporal states constitute one unified act without internal division.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Classical theology often treats simplicity and omniscience as separate divine attributes, suggesting they don't necessarily entail each other.
?
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.