eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The reason why eternity can't have a beginning is because then it would not be eternity anymore.
Damn. Now I cant have eternal life since I have a beginning.[/b]

I knew this one would come up sooner or later. Firstly , I'll admit that this is a good point to raise. My first thoughts are that it may have something to do with eternal life working backwards as well as forwards and also to do with eternity (in a Biblical sense) being a quality of being which God wants to share with us.It may be that eternity and 'eternal life' are slightly different things but I don't want to get too embroiled in this unless you want to because it's not the purpose of the post. We are moving on to God and stuff rather than eternity and I have already ticked off scottishnz for moving too fast.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No ,I don't subscribe to an eternity of nothingness but even if I did I think that if there really was a point at which zilch 'existed' then it would most likely 'carry on' being zilch for all 'time'. Probability implies some cause anyway.

Time another dimension of reality? That sounds a bit mystical for you.

Time is simply a dimension, like length. Indeed, it is length after a fashion - duration, rather.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Sorry..but a vacuum is NOT nothing because in order to have a vacuum you have to have a 3 dimensional space to create it or for it to exist in. Therefore this 'nothing' has dimensions . You can measure a vacuum but 'nothing' (as I keep pointing out) doesn't exist so is logically not measurable. Only things that exist can be measured. Go back to the dra ...[text shortened]... is a term I plucked out of the air , maybe I should just call it plain old logic.

Nothing can have a 3 dimnensional space (duh the whole universe does). I can assure you that there is noting within a vaccum. Vaccums are defined as having nothing in them. Are you sayin vaccums don't exist? That would kind of change physics radically i.e. the speed of light.

There is no contradiction in the concept of the vaccum. Simply, the vaccum is nothing. It can occupy space and whatever, but it is still nothing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I knew this one would come up sooner or later. Firstly , I'll admit that this is a good point to raise. My first thoughts are that it may have something to do with eternal life working backwards as well as forwards and also to do with eternity (in a Biblical sense) being a quality of being which God wants to share with us.It may be that eternity and 'e ...[text shortened]... nd stuff rather than eternity and I have already ticked off scottishnz for moving too fast.

Quite simple, existentially I have a beginning (an origin). God may not have a beginning- in fact he doesn't. However, I always have a beginning. There is a point in time when I did not exist. Thus, I can never have an eternal life. I do not agree with your definition of eternity. There seems to be a contradiction.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Nothing can have a 3 dimnensional space (duh the whole universe does). I can assure you that there is noting within a vaccum. Vaccums are defined as having nothing in them. Are you sayin vaccums don't exist? That would kind of change physics radically i.e. the speed of light.

There is no contradiction in the concept of the vaccum. Simply, the vaccum is nothing. It can occupy space and whatever, but it is still nothing.

Of course vacuums exist . And things that exist ...um...drum roll...well they exist. It is logically impossible to have something that exists and be nothing. It either exists (and is there) or it doesn't exist (and hence is not there). So if a vacuum exists then it exists....but if it's nothing then why does it exist? Philosophically and logically this is impossible .

I agree the universe has 3d space. This is because it exists and therefore is not nothing but something. Something that has 3d space exists as part of the universe and space /time. My nothing has no dimension , no time , no matter , no energy.No Nothing. I want you to REALLY , REALLY think about this more deeply.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Quite simple, existentially I have a beginning (an origin). God may not have a beginning- in fact he doesn't. However, I always have a beginning. There is a point in time when I did not exist. Thus, I can never have an eternal life. I do not agree with your definition of eternity. There seems to be a contradiction.

If you reached eternity and had eternal life you would see that indeed there was a point 'in time' when you did not exist. However , time itself is merely a limited dimension because we are trapped in time we can't really grasp the idea that once we are in eternity, time is transcended. It's like the idea that God 'sees' you being born and dying all at the same moment. This seems contradictory at first because surely God sees you in sequential time , one thing following another. But because eternity stands outside of time it actually makes sense.
In christian terms those in heaven are already there right now even before death (or birth) because from God's perspective you have always been with him in eternity and your life is over in a 'millisecond'. He always knew you would be with him and infact was enjoying you being with him 'before' you were born. So a 'point in time' (inside the universe) when you did not exist might not apply once time itself has dissappeared and you are only left with eternal 'time'. I do wonder however whether 'eternal life' in the bible actually refers to immortal life technically (ie life with beginning but no end into eternity). I agree there is a kind of contradiction here but I feel it's more to do with the contraints of 'time based' thinking rather than a contradiction of logic.If eternity exists then we have to expect time to get twisted in some very wierd ways.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Of course vacuums exist . And things that exist ...um...drum roll...well they exist. It is logically impossible to have something that exists and be nothing. It either exists (and is there) or it doesn't exist (and hence is not there). So if a vacuum exists then it exists....but if it's nothing then why does it exist? Philosophically and logically this ...[text shortened]... no matter , no energy.No Nothing. I want you to REALLY , REALLY think about this more deeply.

Well, it could be argued that a vacuum only exists as a concept, in that it has neither any mass or energy. It's really more the absence of anything rather than the distinct presence of something.

So your nothing it, well, nothing then? So you have eternity, which appears to exist, by your definition, independantly of time, and you have a point in time in the past where you have nothing, and then the universe, which is definately, roughly, something. Sounds alot like you're coming around to the something from nothing stance matey boy.

I do disagree about the eternity though; if it's time independant, it may only last a microsecond, rather than for all time. You're going to have to have a time component in your definition, then you'll struggle to get past the whole "beginning of the universe, beginning of time" thing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If you reached eternity and had eternal life you would see that indeed there was a point 'in time' when you did not exist. However , time itself is merely a limited dimension because we are trapped in time we can't really grasp the idea that once we are in eternity, time is transcended. It's like the idea that God 'sees' you being born and dying all at ...[text shortened]... y exists then we have to expect time to get twisted in some very wierd ways.

so this is an exercise in wooley thinking then?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, it could be argued that a vacuum only exists as a concept, in that it has neither any mass or energy. It's really more the absence of anything rather than the distinct presence of something.

So your nothing it, well, nothing then? So you have eternity, which appears to exist, by your definition, independantly of time, and you have a point in ...[text shortened]... u'll struggle to get past the whole "beginning of the universe, beginning of time" thing.

I'm a bit scientifically ignorant on vacuums to be honest. Does a vacuum mean it has been extracted of all atoms completely ? Has it been scientifically shown that a vacuum can be created that has no protons , bosons , quarks, gamma rays , or any hint of dark matter or anything sub atomic in it at all? I take your point about the vacuum being the absence of anything but in the past your definitions of nothing have turned out to be actually something , so forgive me for being suspicious about this.

I did not say and have never said that there was 'a point in time when there was nothing' . If there ever had been then nothing would ever have happened , existence would not have existed...so nothing could have gone on to exist. You have forgotten that in theistic terms eternity is much more than just a 'bloody long time' it's actually a 'substance' or the very 'stuff' that God is made of. Love , power, spirit , holiness etc. (sorry , I said this wasn't going to be about God but you forced my hand here) The only reason I'm using a time related definition of eternity is because it's the only reference I 've got to explain something that has no beginning. In reality I believe that time is a temporary dimension that is actually finite , or to put it another way eternity existed when time did not exist and 'will' still be around when time is gone. Eternity is the 'timeless' fuel or 'power' behind all life and all existence which cannot 'run down' because only things trapped within finite time 'run down'.

I understand that you see time as much more than a finite thing and might find it hard to imagine a dimension beyond time but in order to avoid the logical impossibilty of existence emerging from non-existence you have to have something beyond time anyway.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm a bit scientifically ignorant on vacuums to be honest. Does a vacuum mean it has been extracted of all atoms completely ? Has it been scientifically shown that a vacuum can be created that has no protons , bosons , quarks, gamma rays , or any hint of dark matter or anything sub atomic in it at all? I take your point about the vacuum being the absen ...[text shortened]... erging from non-existence you have to have something beyond time anyway.

A complete vacuum is the absence of any known matter (energy would be included) within a given space. My definition of nothing has never been otherwise. I did plausit an abstract concept of what might have happened, had there been any time or matter for anything to happen to, but there wasn't. It was entirely hypothetical.

I'm going to now ask you for your direct experimental evidence that anything exists outwith (i.e. eternity, or god, whichever you prefer) the currently understood 4 dimensions.

I don't need to get past the "logical impossibility of existance emerging from non-existance" because, as stated before, logic is something which requires causality, and without time there is no causality. The question of "where did the universe come from?" is loaded with assumptions, first that a cause is required, secondly that a cause exists. Difficult one. The most difficult one imaginable in fact. The difference between you and I is that you insert god into the equation, whilst I don't (i.e. you have a specified end point as I've pointed out before).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
A complete vacuum is the absence of any known matter (energy would be included) within a given space. My definition of nothing has never been otherwise. I did plausit an abstract concept of what might have happened, had there been any time or matter for anything to happen to, but there wasn't. It was entirely hypothetical.

I'm going to now ask you ...[text shortened]... ion, whilst I don't (i.e. you have a specified end point as I've pointed out before).he

Your concept is of a vacuum with entirely nothing of any existence in it at all. I was wondering though if such a thing has ever been done in an experiment?. If not then it seems entirely reasonable to assume that it's not possible. The basis of reasoned, logic , scientific thinking is based on the assumption that 'everything happens for a reason'. Can you think of a single significant, accepted scientific theory that is not built on this assumption?

Scientists , philosophers , psychologists have been using this assumption for years to understand the universe. This assumption is so embedded that we don't always stop to think about it. So if I make the assumption that there was a reason (or cause) that the universe began then I'm in good company. It is you who have to explain how as a scientist (I presume), you are able to just trash the very reasoned thinking that has lead science so far without so much as a whimper of self contradiction. Do you not realise that if you believe something did come out of zilch for absolutely no reason or cause whatsoever , then you have condemned science to being entirely limited in these things . Scientists could study it for infinity and would never be able make any sense of this non-sensical reasonless event. Game over , science is dead , religion takes over anyway.

If you want to saw off the very branch you have been sitting on all your life then fine , but I am sure that if suddenly started saying 'Oh and by the way , God sometimes does evil things' you'd be after me in a flash accusing me of going back on a central Christian belief. I can own the contradictions implicit in what I believe (ie suffering , evil) can you own yours?...or do you not feel the need to maintain any consistency?

The evidence for anything existing outside 4 dimensions is largely in the human experience of eternity or God. I know you are likely to view this as anecdotal and unscientific but various civilisations independently of each other have come to an understanding of eternity and countless individuals have had transcendant experiences of God. I have personally spoken to people who have spoken of experiences so 'incredible' that they defy words. There is also prophesy and pre-cognition, which although controversial, imply a dimension outside of time. That's my evidence..trash it if you like...but where is your evidence for nothing? (and I MEAN nothing this time).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
, secondly that a cause exists. Difficult one. The most difficult one imaginable in fact. The difference between you and I is that you insert god into the equation, whilst I don't (i.e. you have a specified end point as I've pointed out before).[/b]

The specific end point? There was at least 10 years between me accepting the idea of eternity as the most likely and reasonable solution to this problem and going down the road of thinking that God might be real. I still had to decide what kind of eternity I was into. This is no proof of God remember. There are many more difficult questions to wrestle with than this. There is no single argument in my book that can get you believing in God anyway. I am interested in figuring out how the 'something from nothing' idea, which to me seems self evidently illogical and unscientific, comes to be so easily accepted by many Atheists. It often leaves me wondering if there is a fear in accepting eternity as more logical in the same way creationists fear evolution because they don't like it's implications for their belief system. I still have no idea how you have arrived at your viewpoint on this logically

Originally posted by scottishinnz
so this is an exercise in wooley thinking then?

I'll concede defeat on this. It was a bad attempt to try and explain something that I haven't thought through fully. I'm starting to come round to the idea that 'eternal' life actually means 'immortal' life and it's just sloppy semantics in the Bible. I'm not sure this really makes any difference though. Once having gained immortality , you are unlikely to say to yourself 'bugger..I'm so dissappointed...I thought I was going to have no beginning , and now I find out I'm only going to live forever!'

Originally posted by no1marauder
No I don't and neither do you. The difference is I'm not going to create a magical fairy tale to "solve" this little problem. I've already stated that what happened before the Big Bang is beyond the purview of science. Trying to apply such principles to metaphysical questions gets you nowhere. Of course, you don't really believe in such principles anyway.

The fairy tale was done by another, there was nothing then the
big bang. You cannot work out why that happened, so avoid the
discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz


I don't need to get past the "logical impossibility of existance emerging from non-existance" because, as stated before, logic is something which requires causality, and without time there is no causality.

Prove 'without time there is no causality' . Is this not an assumption? I know that you need a cause and an effect to have causality and that represents itself as time in our universe. But is time needed? If you have a cause and an effect then you can still have causality. Time is a result of causality not the other way round. It is more accurate to say 'without causality there is no time' therefore time depends on causality not causality depending on time. Therefore, you cannot have causality without the time that results from it but causality can happen independently of time.It doesn't need time despite being intimately linked with it. Its the old chicken and egg argument and you've got the egg before the chicken.