Brian Leftow makes an important contribution to the longstanding debate among philosophers and theologians about the nature of God's eternity. The author develops a powerful and original defense of the notion that God is eternal in that he exists timelessly; that is, that though God exists, he does not exist at any time. Leftow defends the claim that a timeless God can be an object of human experience, and he attempts to delineate the extent of such a God's (...) omniscience. Finally, the author pays special attention to the relation between the claim that God is timeless and the claim that God is metaphysically simple. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: * Arguments for Divine Timelessness * Arguments for Divine Temporality * Eternity and the Nature of Time * Notes.

[I] Introduction The Western religions all claim that God is eternal. This claim finds strong expression in the Old Testament, which is common property of ...

This book examines 13th century views about time, particularly the views of Thomas Aquinas and his contemporaries in the middle of the century. As medieval thinkers considered time to be just another duration alongside the durations of aeviternity (the aevum) and eternity, the scope of the study covers all three durations, culminating in an examination of God’s relationship to time. Chapter 1 opens the discussion by examining some of the key language and terminology which 13th century (...) thinkers used. Chapters 2-5 examine the topological properties of time: the properties that determine its shape and structure. Chapter 6 investigates the metrical properties of time: the properties pertaining to time when it is considered as a measure. Chapter 7 looks at the criteria, factors, and language which 13th century thinkers typically took as entailing that a particular would be in time. Chapter 8 explores how 13th century thinkers discussed existence outside of time, particularly as it was applied to aeviternity and aeviternal beings. Chapter 9 examines the content of the medieval concept of eternity, and how these ideas are best rendered in contemporary language. Chapter 10 examines the specific question of how 13th century thinkers viewed God’s relationship to time. (shrink)

W. Kneale; VI—Time and Eternity in Theology, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 61, Issue 1, 1 June 1961, Pages 87–108, https://doi.org/10.1093/ari.

The book Time and Eternity , the English version of Zeit und Ewigkeit , by Antje Jackelén, contains scientific and theological treatments of these two topics, starting with the usage of such ideas in German, Swedish, and English hymns. This essay describes her work and explains how the scientific ideas provide a coherent framework for understanding the place of time.

This article seeks to show that the views on time and eternity of Plotinus and Boethius are analogous to those implied by the block-time perspective in contemporary philosophy of time, as implied by the mathematical physics of Einstein and Minkowski. Both Einstein and Boethius utilized their theories of time and eternity with the practical goal of providing consolation to persons in distress; this practice of consolatio is compared to Pierre Hadot’s studies of the “Look (...) from Above”, of the importance of concentrating on the present moment, and his emphasis on ancient philosophy as providing therapy for the soul, instead of mere abstract speculation for its own sake. In the first part of the article, Einstein’s views are compared with those of Plotinus, and with the elucidation of Plotinus’ views provided in the Arabic Theology of Aristotle. The second part of the article studies Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, which, contrary to recent interpretations, is indeed a genuine consolation rather than a parody thereof. The Consolation shows how the study of the Neoplatonic philosophical curriculum can lead the student along the path to salvation, by awakening and elaborating his innate ideas. To illustrate this doctrine, a passage from the little-known PseudoBoethian treatise De diis et praesensionibus is studied. Finally, after a survey of Boethius’ view on fate and providence, and Aristotle’s theory of future contingents, I study Boethius’ three main arguments in favor of the reconcilability of divine omniscience and human free will: the distinction between absolute and conditional necessity, the principle that the nature of knowledge is determined by the knower, and finally the doctrine that God lives in an eternal present, seeing past, present, and future simultaneously. This last view, developed primarily from Plotinus, is once again argued to be analogous to that advocated by contemporary block-time theorists on the basis of Eisteinian relativity. God’s supratemporal vision introduces no necessity into contingent events. Ultimate, objective reality, for Boethius as for Plotinus and Einstein, is atemporal, and our idea that there is a conflict between human free will and divine omniscience derives from a kind of optical illusion, caused by the fact that we cannot help but think in terms of temporality. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Arguments for Divine Timelessness Arguments for Divine Temporality Eternity and the Nature of Time Notes.

The traditional interpretation of Eleatism has it that Melissus was a disciple of Parmenides and that Parmenides believed in the timeless eternity of Being. It seems, on the contrary, that Melissus acknowledged the reality of time by conceiving eternity as infinite time. Failing to justify this particular divergence from Parmenides’ approach, certain authors held that it was necessary to reinterpret the Melissan eternity as a form of infinite timelessness. This paper attempts to demonstrate that this (...) reading is groundless and that if the traditional interpretation is questioned then one should reconsider the assumptions and but not. (shrink)

The fruit of a lifetime of study and contemplation, Seiichi Hatano's final work, Time and Eternity, develops most fully his tripartite scheme of temporality. For Hatano, one of the first Japanese philosophers to study the works of Western thinkers, human experience could be analyzed with reference to natural, cultural, and religious temporalities. Each temporal stage is further characterized by the type of love that rules at that level of life. In Time and Eternity, Hatano explores the (...) stages of temporality in depth and attempts to locate the kind of love which governs in each phase. (shrink)

Stewart R. Sutherland; VII*—God, Time and Eternity, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 79, Issue 1, 1 June 1979, Pages 103–122, https://doi.org/10.

But, is there Eternity? It sounds so grandiose, when the poet says: "Eternity, thou pleasing, dreadful thought." The word, 'eternity' speaks, one might say, as with trumpet blasts and opens before us vistas of infinite spaces that may frighten us. It carries a solemnity with it which elevates us to a higher plane of existence. But we have become so suspicious of any such state of exultation, of any big word, that we wonder, whether 'eternity' is (...) not merely an empty phrase. We understand Time, but we do not understand Eternity. "The clock indicates a moment, but what does Eternity indicate?" Is there eternity at all? Yes, there is, for Time itself is eternal. Time is endless and has no beginning or end. Time cannot stop and, if it stopped, it would stop only at what no longer is Time, but Eternity. Thus, we cannot avoid thinking of some kind of eternity whenever we think of time at all, yes, whenever we think at all of what is true. For what is true is true at any time. Our object may be ever so transitory, may last only a fraction of a second, as for instance, a mesotron does, but that it is so, is true at any time. Our thinking itself is a temporal process, but, if it is true, its truth is true in eternity. (shrink)

But in both these doctrines there is confusion between the temporal process and time itself, a confusion common enough but by no means permissible. For the process of change is not time, though it is what "takes time." It is sensible to ask whether it occurs slowly or quickly, but it makes no sense to ask whether time elapses more or less swiftly. We can consider how long a series of changes takes to occur but not (...) how long a period of time takes to elapse. Time itself does not take time. Our common expressions about the movement of time and its relative velocity are illegitimate and refer only to the number of distinguishable events in a series or the degree of our interest in them, so that we say time "passes" quickly when what occurs is pleasant and interesting, or when exciting events follow each other in quick succession. We say that it passes slowly when little happens which is of any importance to us, or when we are tense and expectant, over-eager for the occurrence of some anticipated climax. These are descriptions of changes in objects or in ourselves which may occur quickly or slowly, they are not descriptions of time. (shrink)

In this paper I propose to examine three different accounts of what it means to talk of God as eternal. Probably the most generally understood sense in which God is believed to be eternal is that of timelessness, as expounded for example by Boethius and Aquinas. An alternative view on the matter is to be found in Nelson Pike's God and Timelessness and in Richard Swinburne's The Coherence of Theism. Swinburne argues explicitly, and Pike implicitly, that talk of the (...) class='Hi'>eternity of God is better understood as talk of the everlastingness (or, as others prefer it, the sempiternity) of God. My argument is that difficulties arise in the published presentations of both of these accounts of the eternity of God. The final section of the paper will outline a third possible account of this belief which, if intelligible, will preserve some at least of the content of what the belief is often taken to be, but which will certainly exclude many of the claims regarded as true by Aquinas, as well as most of those whose mutual coherence is defended by Swinburne. (shrink)

I raise these points because in 1941 I attempted to carry out a project of Wittgenstein’s and to show how all the so-called problems of Time arose out of a strange misunderstanding of the flexible ways of our language, so that we asked questions which could not be answered simply because they violated logical grammar. The concept of the Now of the Present is in ordinary usage infinitely flexible: it can be stretched to cover a decade or a century, (...) or narrowed down to cover what is over in a flash. We are, therefore, inclined to extend it till it covers the whole history of the universe, or to narrow it down till it becomes a mere limit, no sooner arrived at than departed from, and in which it is not significant to posit either a state or a change. In the latter case, we have, then, the problem of constituting Time out of such momentary nothings, which are, even qua nothings, not there all together or, alternatively, of wondering how anything can happen if, before it happens, something else must first happen, and before that again something else, and so on ad infinitum. We have, in short, all the difficulties with which Augustine and Zeno plagued the ancients, to which we may now add the difficulties with which McTaggart has worried the moderns, asking how the same event can be future, present, and past, when it must be these incompatible things at different successive times, and these times, in their turn, must be future, present, and past at different times, and so on ad infinitum. To all these celebrated difficulties the line that I took was plain: that they arose out of imposing a wrong exactness and a wrong generality on the flexible ways of our speech. Augustine and Zeno perplexed us since we failed to see that the present, though never of zero or infinite length, could be just as long or as short as we liked to make it, and McTaggart confused us since we failed to see that there were two distinct ways of talking about events and states, one which remained invariant wherever one was stationed in history, and one which changed according as one changed one’s historical position, and that there was nothing self-contradictory in either form of speech but only in the attempt to combine them. (shrink)

On the one hand, Chinese traditions of philosophy are famous for emphasizing that things are changes, that reality is filled with processes rather than substances. This philosophy was present at least from the Yijing onward and was developed in diverse ways by Confucians, Daoists, and then Chinese Buddhists. But there has not been a similar rich development of the idea of eternity, that nontemporal context within which change can be recognized and measured. This article argues, first, that change presupposes (...) an ontological context of eternity and, second, that eternity so conceived can be experienced and even interpreted in terms of the Chinese traditions. (shrink)