« Relations and Nonexistents | Main | Demarcation and Directedness: Notes on Brentano »

Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hi Bill -- thanks for this post. I confess that I should have been more careful in how I formulated the premises and, in particular, should not have said that past evil "still exists." I do appreciate the fact that eternalism does not imply that past events exists now or presents (I have learned something from reading your blog). But eternalism does imply, as you point out, that past events exist simpliciter or tenselessly. And that, in turn, seems to imply that, on eternalism, a past evil is, well, eternal.

I also wasn't trying to suggest that I had resolved anything with this argument or that I had come up with a knock down argument against theistic eternalism. I was just raising what struck me as an undesirable implication of eternalism for those with theistic sympathies. I think there are also thorny problems raised by theistic presentism of the sort Ed Feser endorses. So I don't deny that introducing theological questions will not resolve the difficulties raised by both eternalism or presentism but what will?

Why should we think that God is not capable to change the past? Maybe it is metaphysicaly extravagant. However, in one recent paper Sam Lebens and Tyron Goldschmidt proposed such solution for past evils. He will heal every heart and wipe away every tear, we could hope.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

September 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Blog powered by Typepad