"How is eternity expressed mathematically?"

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Could it be argued (mischievously) that Charles Russell studied Newton’s works intently and then “borrowed” his ideas and writings in his own work “Studies in the Scriptures”?!

I have not read Studies in the scriptures although I do have the books lying around somewhere, although not complete. Russell was simply someone that looked at scripture from a fresh perspective and many of his ideas were erroneous and some of them outlandishly so. It could be argued so because Newton was an anti-trinitarian having established that it was a non biblical teaching. It is possible that Russell knew of this.

I have not read Newtons own theological writings in any great depth but they would certainly be interesting so as to form a comparison. He was at great loggerheads with, to borrow a phrase, the boofhead church leaders of his time so embroiled in their superstitions and traditions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not read Studies in the scriptures although I do have the books lying around somewhere, although not complete. Russell was simply someone that looked at scripture from a fresh perspective and many of his ideas were erroneous and some of them outlandishly so. It could be argued so because Newton was an anti-trinitarian having established that ...[text shortened]... ase, the boofhead church leaders of his time so embroiled in their superstitions and traditions.

Yes. You might also find of interest Russell's attraction to Pyramidology, which again links him to Newton. (You can even see this in their chosen gravestones!)

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes. You might also find of interest Russell's attraction to Pyramidology, which again links him to Newton. (You can even see this in their chosen gravestones!)

yes there is a kind of pull out in one of the studies in scripture of a great pyramid and lots of speculative calculations made on its dimensions. Russells gravestone is not in the shape of a pyramid. The pyramid that you refer to was erected five years after his death in 1921.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes there is a kind of pull out in one of the studies in scripture of a great pyramid and lots of speculative calculations made on its dimensions. Russells gravestone is not in the shape of a pyramid. The pyramid that you refer to was erected five years after his death in 1921.

You would make a very poor pyramid yourself sir. (Your angles are far too obtuse).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You would make a very poor pyramid yourself sir. (Your angles are far too obtuse).

Whereas you being a complete square would be ideal 😛

Originally posted by finnegan
Following from the reality that there are many infinities, one might also recall that time (like distance) is infinitely divisible, so that to pass an hour requires a transition through an infinity of miniscule moments. That familiar feeling that a tedious sermon is eternally long is not without foundation and surely gives an insight into the meaninglessne ...[text shortened]... through stained glass windows.

Another disaster for the suicide bombers among us, obviously.

In exploring this notion of eternity, it is also useful to turn the telescope to the rear and look at time past. In the early 800s CE, when Islamic scholars in Baghdad worked on this type of problem, four or more centuries ahead of any European Christian philosophers, Al Nazaam held that an infinity cannot be traversed and that one infinity cannot be greater than another infinity. With this in mind, Saadia summarized arguments for creation and included the following: that if past time were infinite, then the original cause of existence could not reach me. Since I do exist, there must have been a temporal beginning.

Originally posted by finnegan
In exploring this notion of eternity, it is also useful to turn the telescope to the rear and look at time past. In the early 800s CE, when Islamic scholars in Baghdad worked on this type of problem, four or more centuries ahead of any European Christian philosophers, Al Nazaam held that an infinity cannot be traversed and that one infinity cannot be gre ...[text shortened]... e of existence could not reach me. Since I do exist, there must have been a temporal beginning.

I like this idea. The Christian notion of eternity is such that it is separate from this space-time cosmos, which indeed has a beginning and therefore an end, and that eternity is in some way and absence of time rather than an expression of it. This of course is impossible to comprehend as time is an inextricable function of mass and the fabric of space and objectives moving relative to one an other (at least, something like that), therefore how can eternity exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have no reason to believe that any such 'uncaused cause' exists. Even if you believe in a God, there is no good reason to believe that.
In addition, if you do hypothesis such an uncaused cause, you have no way of identifying what it was, and hypothesizing about it would certainly not lead to the conclusion that a god must exist (as you apparently incorre ...[text shortened]... sed cause, that is no good reason to think it is singular or was responsible for the law of gravity.

To: twhitehead, if you had been sitting in your high chair at the age of 2 years old
and suddenly managed to climb out of its restraining harness
into thin air, would you have remained there in "thin air"
or would you have fallen into to you mother's arms
or continued to fall the rest of the way down
to the wooden
or tiled floor


?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
To: twhitehead, if you had been sitting in your high chair at the age of 2 years old
and suddenly managed to climb out of its restraining harness
into thin air, would you have remained there in "thin air"
or would you have fallen into to you mother's arms
or continued to fall the rest of the way down
to the wooden
or tiled floor


?

I would obviously have experienced gravity.
Is there anything I have said that would lead you to think I would answer otherwise?
If not, then was there a point to your question?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would obviously have experienced gravity.
Is there anything I have said that would lead you to think I would answer otherwise?
If not, then was there a point to your question?

Originally posted by twhitehead (Page 6)
"We have no reason to believe that any such 'uncaused cause' exists. Even if you believe in a God, there is no good reason to believe that.
In addition, if you do hypothesis such an uncaused cause, you have no way of identifying what it was, and hypothesizing about it would certainly not lead to the conclusion that a god must exist (as you apparently incorrectly believe).

And lastly, even if there were an uncaused cause, that is no good reason to think it is singular or was responsible for the law of gravity." ---?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
And lastly, even if there were an uncaused cause, that is no good reason to think it is singular or was responsible for the law of gravity." ---?

1. If there is one uncaused cause then there may be many such uncaused causes. At the present point in time, we have no idea whether or not true randomness (uncaused causes) exists in the universe and if it does whether or not it is common place. (see the thread on the topic in science Thread 168106

2. If there was only one uncaused cause we do not know if it was responsible for gravity. It could be that gravity is a logical necessity rather than a 'caused' phenomenon. It could be that time is infinite and the uncaused cause just comes along half way through, and gravity has always been there.

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. If there is one uncaused cause then there may be many such uncaused causes. At the present point in time, we have no idea whether or not true randomness (uncaused causes) exists in the universe and if it does whether or not it is common place. (see the thread on the topic in science Thread 168106

2. If there was only one uncaused cause ...[text shortened]... ite and the uncaused cause just comes along half way through, and gravity has always been there.

Cue: time to examine "Occasionalism" e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism

In response to the philosophers' claim that the created order is governed by secondary efficient causes (God being, as it were, the Primary and Final Cause in an ontological and logical sense), Ghazali argues that what we observe as regularity in nature based presumably upon some natural law is actually a kind of constant and continual regularity. There is no independent necessitation of change and becoming, other than what God has ordained. To posit an independent causality outside of God's knowledge and action is to deprive Him of true agency, and diminish his attribute of power. In his famous example, when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned not because of the heat of the fire, but through God's direct intervention, a claim which he defended using logic. In the 12th century, this theory was defended and further strengthened by the Islamic theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, using his expertise in the natural sciences of astronomy, cosmology and physics.
Because God is usually seen as rational, rather than arbitrary, his behaviour in normally causing events in the same sequence (i.e., what appears to us to be efficient causation) can be understood as a natural outworking of that principle of reason, which we then describe as the laws of nature. Properly speaking, however, these are not laws of nature but laws by which God chooses to govern his own behaviour (his autonomy, in the strict sense) — in other words, his rational will. This is not, however, an essential element of an occasionalist account, and occasionalism can include positions where God's behaviour (and thus that of the world) is viewed as ultimately inscrutable, thus maintaining God's essential transcendence.

These reflections in Islamic philosophy were transmitted to the mediaeval Christian thinkers and on to modern thinkers like Hume and Berkeley, but you may particularly like the following:

In 1993, Karen Harding's paper "Causality Then and Now: Al Ghazali and Quantum Theory" described several "remarkable" similarities between Ghazali's concept of occasionalism and the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. She stated: "In both cases, and contrary to common sense, objects are viewed as having no inherent properties and no independent existence. In order for an object to exist, it must be brought into being either by God (al Ghazili) or by an observer (the Copenhagen Interpretation)." She also stated:[3]
In addition, the world is not entirely predictable. For al Ghazali, God has the ability to make anything happen whenever He chooses. In general, the world functions in a predictable manner, but a miraculous event can occur at any moment. All it takes for a miracle to occur is for God to not follow His ‘custom.’ The quantum world is very similar. Lead balls fall when released because the probability of their behaving in that way is very high. It is, however, very possible that the lead ball may ‘miraculously’ rise rather than fall when released. Although the probability of such an event is very small, such an event is, nonetheless, still possible.

Originally posted by divegeester
I like this idea. The Christian notion of eternity is such that it is separate from this space-time cosmos, which indeed has a beginning and therefore an end, and that eternity is in some way and absence of time rather than an expression of it. This of course is impossible to comprehend as time is an inextricable function of mass and the fabric of space ...[text shortened]... ving relative to one an other (at least, something like that), therefore how can eternity exist.

divegeester, "how can eternity [not] exist."? If it didn't why would you be discussing the meaning of an English word
referred to as "eternity" in the Oxford Dictionary's Latest Edition? (to be continued)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
divegeester, "how can eternity [not] exist."? If it didn't why would you be discussing the meaning of an English word
referred to as "eternity" in the Oxford Dictionary's Latest Edition? (to be continued)

Yesterday afternoon i found myself in a conversation with my cousin about the Loch ness Monster.

By discussing the monster, does this make its existence absolute? Is it not possible to discuss things that do not exist?!

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. If there is one uncaused cause then there may be many such uncaused causes. At the present point in time, we have no idea whether or not true randomness (uncaused causes) exists in the universe and if it does whether or not it is common place. (see the thread on the topic in science Thread 168106

2. If there was only one uncaused cause ...[text shortened]... ite and the uncaused cause just comes along half way through, and gravity has always been there.

"(see the thread on the topic in science Thread 168106" Page number and contributor's User ID?