About
    • AMMDI is an open-notebook hypertext writing experiment, authored by Mike Travers aka mtraven. It's a work in progress and some parts are more polished than others. Comments welcome! More.
Search
Page Contents
Full
Incoming links
from eternalism
  • For some Xian thinking on eternity, see nunc stans. I'm with the Buddhists on this one I think. I want to hem and haw and say, well there is a kind of eternal substrate of reality, we just can't say much of anything about it because we are so deeply embedded in it.

nunc stans

05 Oct 2026 - 10 Oct 2026
Open in Logseq
    • OK define and explain Ask Claude

      • Nunc Stans — "The Standing Now"

      • Definition

      • Nunc stans is a Latin phrase meaning "standing now." In philosophy, it describes an idea of eternity that exists separate from concepts of time.
      • It is contrasted with its counterpart:
      • Latin metaphysics spoke of eternity as nunc stans — a "standing now" — and of ordinary time as nunc fluens — a "flowing now."

      • Origins

      • The phrase comes from the Scholastic philosophical tradition, crystallized most precisely in Boethius and developed by Thomas Aquinas.
      • Its roots, however, go further back: Plato described time as a "moving image of eternity." Time extends to past, present, and future, but only eternity has the present. This determination becomes a tradition that defines eternity as the timeless now. Plotinus calls eternity "remaining in one."

      • The Core Idea

      • Divine eternity is not endless duration — an infinite stretch of time — but the simultaneous whole possession of all time in a single unchanging present: the nunc stans, the eternal now in which past, present, and future are all simultaneously visible, the way a person standing on a hill can see the entire road laid out below them while the travellers on the road experience it sequentially, one step at a time.
      • Put differently: God experiences time closer to how we experience space — past, present, and future all laid out before him so that it can be grasped in an instant.

      • Boethius and the Problem It Solves

      • The problem nunc stans addresses is one of the most difficult in all of theology: how can a God who knows all things also be a God who does not override the genuine freedom of human choice? If God knows from eternity what I will do tomorrow, in what sense is tomorrow's choice genuinely mine?
      • Boethius' answer, proposed in The Consolation of Philosophy written while awaiting execution in 524 AD, is the nunc stans. God does not know future events the way a prophet knows them — by anticipation, looking forward along the timeline. God knows all events as present, because for God there is no timeline.

      • Aquinas's Refinement

      • Aquinas refined this: God's knowledge of free human acts is not foreknowledge in the temporal sense — it is present knowledge. God knows what I will freely choose tomorrow because, in the divine nunc stans, tomorrow is already present. The choice is still genuinely free.

      • Later Reception

      • Thomas Hobbes strongly criticized the term nunc stans, arguing it is not an appropriate term to describe eternity — a "standing present" is simply incomprehensible.
      • Arthur Schopenhauer uses the term to speak of the "indestructibility of our being in itself."

      • Summary

      • In short, nunc stans is the philosophical/theological concept that God (or the eternal) does not experience time sequentially as humans do, but stands above or outside time, perceiving all moments — past, present, and future — as a single, unified, motionless "now." It is eternity not as infinite duration, but as the complete absence of temporal succession.
       because web search was useless, not even a wikipedia page (almost made one but not my jam). See block universe
    • I don't understand the Boethius argument at all. Sure, God does not know the future the way a prophet does – its all present to him. But that is equally destructive of the idea of free will, perhaps more so.
      • Ask Claude
        • Your instinct is exactly right, and you are in good company. This is one of the most contested points in medieval philosophy of religion. Let me break down precisely why the argument is problematic — and what the best defenders of Boethius say in reply.

        • Your Objection, Stated Precisely

        • The Boethian move is to replace foreknowledge with present knowledge. But you're pointing out that this substitution doesn't actually do any work. Whether God knows your tomorrow's choice in advance or simultaneously, the result is the same: God's knowledge is infallible, and therefore the event known is fixed. The label on the knowing — past, present, or timeless — seems irrelevant to the underlying necessity.
        • What matters is that God's knowledge is certain. Because if it is certain, by whatever means — foreknowledge or timeless knowledge — then the event will come to pass as it has been certainly known.
        • This is not a fringe view.
        • Philosopher Linda Zagzebski, while sympathetic to the Boethian doctrine of divine timelessness, has argued that the timelessness move does not completely avoid the problem of theological fatalism, since an argument structurally parallel to the basic argument can be formulated for timeless knowledge.
        • The parallel argument runs like this:
        • If God is not in time, the key issue would not be the necessity of the past, but the necessity of the timeless realm. Perhaps it is inappropriate to say that timeless events such as God's timeless knowing are now-necessary, yet we might have no more reason to think we can do anything about God's timeless knowing than about God's past knowing. The timeless realm is as much out of our reach as the past.
        • In other words: swapping "the past is fixed" for "the timeless realm is fixed" doesn't help at all. Both are equally beyond our reach.

        • What Boethius Actually Says in His Own Defence

        • Boethius's actual move — and it's subtler than it often gets presented — is a distinction between two kinds of necessity:
        • **Simple (or absolute) necessity*: The event must* happen, period. It could not have been otherwise. (E.g., the sun must rise.)
        • Conditional necessity: Given that X is observed/known, it is happening — but the event itself was not predetermined to happen. It happens freely; God's knowing of it is conditional on the free act itself.
        • The assumption that God is outside of time, according to Boethius, converts the choice to one that is only conditionally necessary despite God's knowledge. The condition (being given the apple) leads to the action (eating the apple) but does not necessitate it in an absolute sense — what Adam and Eve decide depends on their moral make-up, the persuasive words of the serpent, and a myriad other influences.
        • The analogy Boethius uses: if you watch someone walk down a road right now, your observation does not cause or compel their walking. God's eternal "watching" is like that — but from a vantage point that encompasses all of time.

        • Why This Reply Is Still Unsatisfying

        • The problem is that the analogy of watching only works if God is a passive observer whose knowledge is derived from the free act. But classical theism, including Boethius and Aquinas, does not hold that God's knowledge is derived from creation — that would make God dependent on the creature.
        • If God is outside space and time, then He must be wholly simple, and His knowledge of creation cannot be separate from his single act of creation.
        • There's a deeper version of the same problem, pressed by William Hasker:
        • to assert that humans possess libertarian freedom implies that there is a fundamental, ontological difference between the future and the past. The past consists of events that have already occurred and are now and forever unable to be prevented. This means there is a real, objective difference between past and future — and this claim stands in deep tension with the view of God as timeless.
        • Furthermore — and this is perhaps the sharpest point —
        • if there is a unique present moment, a timeless God cannot know what moment that is. For in order to know which moment is really now, God would have to change, since the truth about which moment is present is itself constantly changing. But change is precisely what a timeless God cannot do.

        • The Bottom Line

        • Boethius's argument has three steps, and each one can be challenged:
        • | Step | Boethian claim | Problem | |
          |
          |
          | | 1 | God is timeless, so he has no foreknowledge | Even timeless knowledge is fixed knowledge — the label changes nothing | | 2 | God's knowing is only conditionally necessary | This only works if God's knowledge is derived from our acts — which classical theism denies | | 3 | Therefore free will is preserved | The timeless realm is as unreachable as the past — so we can no more "do otherwise" than before |
        • Your intuition that the move from foreknowledge to present knowledge is "equally destructive of free will, perhaps more so" maps precisely onto Zagzebski's formal objection and Hasker's argument.
        • All events must come to pass as God knows them — and the timelessness of God actually strengthens the argument against libertarian free will.
        • This is why many contemporary philosophers of religion have abandoned the Boethian solution in favour of alternatives like Open Theism (God does not know future free acts because the future is genuinely open) or Molinism (God knows via "middle knowledge" what any creature would freely do in any circumstance) — each of which has its own very serious problems.