1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd how do we even know it was God? Why not Allah,
Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. His God was more akin to "existence" or "everything".
Once a scientist chooses mysticism over logic, they allow "magic" into their explanation repertoire. This debases everything - no explanation is beyond "goddunit". And how do we even know it was God? Why not Allah, or the FSM? The distinction is abs rld.
2 Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
This question doesn't make any sense to me.
The main implication, it seems to me, of some 'thing' being eternal is that such a 'thing' was never created; not only does it exist in the infinite future, but also in the infinite past and therefore nothing could have preceded it.
Of course, conceptualizing this 'thing' as existing in lifeless flux from age to age in perpetuity in the form of plasma or subatomic structures merely (as the parsimonious among us might contend) elevates the universe itself to eternal status; the only viable option for those who refuse to posit a creator for lack of evidence.
Yet we see towards the beginning of the universe clear indications of an evolution dictated by unchanging and immaterial laws, in place at inception. Were (and are) these laws expressions of a reality 'outside' of the time-space continuum?
The time-line we are each habitually aware of, extending to an infinite future and an infinite past, lacks any immanent characteristics; but whatever is eternal must also subsist immanently (vistesd could no doubt wax eloquent here, admirably conceptualizing and reconceptualizing the 'ground' of all being until the cows come home).
The point being, a First Cause does not necessarily connote some 'thing' 'outside' of space-time. Re-imagining the idea of a contingent universe as a perpetually contingent universe is, I believe, the key to the whole affair.
The universe is perpetually contingent upon the consistency of its laws. The question I'm interested in is, what are the laws which govern the universe contingent upon?
I would suggest the First Cause is immanent within the universe, and that the verifiable expression of itself is Law.
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf you had followed the thread you would know that the word "eternal" has several meanings so state which you mean before using it.
The main implication, it seems to me, of some 'thing' being eternal is that such a 'thing' was never created; not only does it exist in the infinite future, but also in the infinite past and therefore nothing could have preceded it.
The time-line we are each habitually aware of, extending to an infinite future and an infinite past, lacks any immanent characteristics;
What? Who is aware of time extending into the infinite past or infinite future? You have absolutely no evidence for that. In fact the evidence implies that time in the past is most definitely not infinite.
If we take "eternal" to mean "valid or existing at all times" then energy is eternal and so are the laws of physics.
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat? Who is aware of time extending into the infinite past or infinite future? You have absolutely no evidence for that.
If you had followed the thread you would know that the word "eternal" has several meanings so state which you mean before using it.
[b]The time-line we are each habitually aware of, extending to an infinite future and an infinite past, lacks any immanent characteristics;
What? Who is aware of time extending into the infinite past or infinite futu an "valid or existing at all times" then energy is eternal and so are the laws of physics.[/b]
I'm simply referring to this:
(An infinite line)
^
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Not as evidence, but as a familiar conceptual model.
If we take "eternal" to mean "valid or existing at all times" then energy is eternal and so are the laws of physics.
Your use of 'eternal' here effectively means 'finite', since you've already admitted that time 'is most definitely not infinite'; by way of, how can energy be eternal if energy is contingent upon time? Your intended use for the term is 'finite'.
If you had followed the thread you would know that the word "eternal" has several meanings so state which you mean before using it.
Let's use 'eternal' in the classic sense: without beginning and without end. None of us will need a dictionary for that, with the added bonus of being on the same page.
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo you were not. You specifically mentioned an infinite timeline:
I'm simply referring to this:
(An infinite line)
^
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Not as evidence, but as a familiar conceptual model.
The time-line we are each habitually aware of, extending to an infinite future and an infinite past,
and claimed we are aware of such a timeline. That is false.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wonder if he meant that the tmeline we are aware of is "undefined" (ie infinite) in length? We have no way of knowing whether time had a beginning or when or whether it will end. We don't even know if there was (or still is) a prior universe to the one we know or trillions of them stacked in a long chain of causal events one after the other.
No you were not. You specifically mentioned an infinite timeline:
[b]The time-line we are each habitually aware of, extending to an infinite future and an infinite past,
and claimed we are aware of such a timeline. That is false.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is why it doesn't make any sense in this argument.
Of course, by "God" I refer to the Christian god.
This argument is not to prove (and it can't) any special concept about the creator or what you can call it GOD.
So saying GOD of christians and GOD of Muslims has no relation with what you are discussing here.
The word GOD in English doesn't refere to any special GOD. It is used to refere to the any divine being. It doesn't refere to the christian GOD becuase the christian divin being named himself Jahova, or Elohem.
So what this argument is all about is to prove the existance of som divine being. Defining this divine being and his name comes from this being himself if he exist.
EDIT: I'm sorry for any spelling Mistaks, you know I the master of them.
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo 'eternal life' is not 'classic?' That is, the way in which it is most commonly used in Christian
Let's use 'eternal' in the classic sense: without beginning and without end. None of us will need a dictionary for that, with the added bonus of being on the same page.
Scripture is actually an auxiliary definition?
Nemesio
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy are you accusing me of lying? 🙂 All I can say is, yes, that is what I was referring to. My point being that such a rudimentary conceptual model does not help grasp the immanence of eternity, because it deals strictly with an eternal duration (infinite past ------> infinite future). My intention was never to posit this time-line as accepted fact, but as a conceptual model everyone should at least be familiar with. That was my intention, I assure you; that you did not read it that way is due to poor writing rather than any intended falseness on my part.
No you were not. You specifically mentioned an infinite timeline:
[b]The time-line we are each habitually aware of, extending to an infinite future and an infinite past,
and claimed we are aware of such a timeline. That is false.[/b]
It'd be cool if you'd address the main thrust of my post...
Originally posted by NemesioEternal life in the common Christian usage, as far as I am aware, refers specifically to God's eternal life, which the believer partakes of. Yes, it is meant in the 'classic' sense as an eternal duration ('everlasting'😉, but it is also meant in an immanent sense ('the kingdom of heaven is at hand'😉, and also in a qualitative sense ('the joy of the Lord'😉.
So 'eternal life' is not 'classic?' That is, the way in which it is most commonly used in Christian
Scripture is actually an auxiliary definition?
Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe point being, a First Cause does not necessarily connote some 'thing' 'outside' of space-time. Re-imagining the idea of a contingent universe as a perpetually contingent universe is, I believe, the key to the whole affair. . . .
The main implication, it seems to me, of some 'thing' being eternal is that such a 'thing' was never created; not only does it exist in the infinite future, but also in the infinite past and therefore nothing could have preceded it.
Of course, conceptualizing this 'thing' as existing in lifeless flux from age to age in perpetuity in the form of plasma ...[text shortened]... mmanent within the universe, and that the verifiable expression of itself is Law.
I would suggest the First Cause is immanent within the universe, and that the verifiable expression of itself is Law.
Now you got my attention. 🙂 I am just going to sit back and see where it goes, however—too early for me really to ask questions...
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo, when Jesus said, 'Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life...' (St John 6:54a)
Eternal life in the common Christian usage, as far as I am aware, refers specifically to God's eternal life, which the believer partakes of.
He didn't mean that those who did so (metaphorically, of course) would actually have eternal life?
Or, is it just possible that something can live eternally and have a definite inception?
Nemesio
P.S., Do Strong's search on 'eternal' or 'everlasting' and see how many refer to God and how many
refer to 'believers' in the Christian Scriptures... I think your notion of 'classic' definition is wrong.