10 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinPenguin's life had a beginning and will subsequently have a termination in time. The human race had a beginning and will subsequently have a termination in time. Eternity encapsulates these parenthetical events. Please note graphic illustration of [Penguin's life/the human race] within an otherwise blank screen/page representing Eternity in the following post. Thanks.
We do not know that time is finite, only that it had a beginning. At the moment it is looking like it might not have an end. Even if it does, you are essentially speculating about what is north of the North Pole. Meaningless.
The term 'eternity' is the opposite of what you mean. Eternity is endless time (in which you can have an infinite number of relati ...[text shortened]... ips). You are talking about an absence of time (in which you can have none at all)
Penguin.
10 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWe are well aware that our lives and the history and future of the
Penguin's life had a beginning and will subsequently have a termination in time. The human race had a beginning and will subsequently have a termination in time. Eternity encapsulates these parenthetical events. Please note graphic illustration of [Penguin's life/the human race] within an otherwise blank screen/page representing Eternity in the following post. Thanks.
Human race are temporal phenomena with beginnings and ends. This has no relevance to phenomena of a non-temporal nature.
--- penguin.
13 Jul 13
"an ancient dilemma..."
"Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (OP)
13 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyQuite simply, No.
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."
"Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (OP)[/b]
And I will explain again why not...
If there were no time dimension in this hypothetical state the I suppose you could only have 2 options. However, terms 'eternal' and 'permanent' are meaningless outside of a time dimension. Also a 'relationship' is something that is dependant on a time dimension.
So without a time dimension, the offer is nonsensical.
With a time dimension, there are two other logical options:
- a temporary relationship
- multiple temporary relationships
Furthermore, we have no evidence that such an entity exists (or could exist) or that such an offer has been made (or could be made).
--- Penguin.
15 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsTo quote somebody on another thread:
Yes, you are right. There is Hellfire and torment forever.
The Instuctor
I had a hope for a serious argument to refute. But I will have to wait for another poster.
It's a shame that GB seems to have given up, he was making me think a bit.
--- Penguin.
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinPlease consider the possibility that "Time" and "Eternity" may differ qualitatively? And that if these concepts may involve different units of measure, quantitative comparisons wouldn't apply. Thanks for your continued interest. -Bob
Quite simply, No.
And I will explain again why not...
If there were no time dimension in this hypothetical state the I suppose you could only have 2 options. However, terms 'eternal' and 'permanent' are meaningless outside of a time dimension. Also a 'relationship' is something that is dependant on a time dimension.
So without a time dimension, the ...[text shortened]... s (or could exist) or that such an offer has been made (or could be made).
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe unit of measure is irrelevant.
Please consider the possibility that "Time" and "Eternity" may differ qualitatively? And that if these concepts may involve different units of measure, quantitative comparisons wouldn't apply. Thanks for your continued interest. -Bob
If it is possible for change, for thoughts, for things to happen then there must
be time of one kind or another.
Time IS the thing that allows for things to change, for there to be experience.
Without time your 'proposal' makes absolutely no sense.
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudge"Time IS the thing that allows for things to change, for there to be experience." (googlefudge)
The unit of measure is irrelevant.
If it is possible for change, for thoughts, for things to happen then there must
be time of one kind or another.
Time IS the thing that allows for things to change, for there to be experience.
Without time your 'proposal' makes absolutely no sense.
Correct. Decisions [one in a series of "things"] made/taken in "Time" result in consequences. Some consequences may be reversed in "Time"; none can be changed in eternity. The ultimate consequence is our being's address for eternity. -Bob
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf nothing can change then there can be no experience.
"Time IS the thing that allows for things to change, for there to be experience." (googlefudge)
Correct. Decisions [one in a series of "things"] made/taken in "Time" result in consequences. Some consequences may be reversed in "Time"; none can be changed in eternity. The ultimate consequence is our being's address for eternity. -Bob
There is literally no difference in experience between any unchanging realities
as there can be no experiences of any kind.
So, by your description, what happens, what we experience, after death is absolutely nothing.
Which is correct.
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo this means eternity does not currently exist, but is some future static state, created by current actions. I wonder why you choose the label 'eternity' if it clearly does not fit the usual meanings of that word.
Decisions [one in a series of "things"] made/taken in "Time" result in consequences. Some consequences may be reversed in "Time"; none can be changed in eternity. The ultimate consequence is our being's address for eternity. -Bob
But the most important thing to ask, is who cares what address our 'being's' address will be in that future static state? Its none of my nevermind. The question is why do you care? Are you under some sort of impression that the 'being's' in question are some sort of continuation of our consciousness? If so, why do you think this?
And does consciousness even have meaning in a timeless static state?