Scholarlink

<p>In a recent article Mullins (<CitationRef CitationID="CR37">2026</CitationRef>) offers a reply to Page’s (<CitationRef CitationID="CR44">2025a</CitationRef>) contention that a defender of timelessness can deny the existence of a ‘Precreation moment’ in order to avoid various arguments against timelessness and can do so without doing anything theologically suspect. Mullins suggests this cannot be done, and that a defender of timelessness is going to be left embracing a theologically unorthodox account of God’s relationship to creation. Here I’ll argue that Mullins’s response misses the mark in various ways and leaves everything Page claimed unscathed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Not on the same Page: Mullins’s misreadings and still no strong justification for precreation

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月26日

查看全文
  • Ben Page

摘要

In a recent article Mullins (2026) offers a reply to Page’s (2025a) contention that a defender of timelessness can deny the existence of a ‘Precreation moment’ in order to avoid various arguments against timelessness and can do so without doing anything theologically suspect. Mullins suggests this cannot be done, and that a defender of timelessness is going to be left embracing a theologically unorthodox account of God’s relationship to creation. Here I’ll argue that Mullins’s response misses the mark in various ways and leaves everything Page claimed unscathed.