Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
two points regarding view expressed above:
1. it appears in that view there is no problem with certain things lasting forever (i.e. God, the soul)
and
2. from a purely logical point of view eternity runs in both directions. if something "lasts forever" and has no end, then it also has no beginning. conversely if something has a beginning then it also has an end.
What you are saying is that if something has no ending then it has to have had no beginning. But that argument doesn't hold up. For instance, the new heavens and earth as mentioned in Revelation will have a beginning but will have no ending. Something can have a beginning and having once come into existence, continue to exist forever. At least as far as the Bible is concerned.
Another example. The concept of eternal life. Biblically speaking, a person obtains eternal life, which is a reference to life in a saving relationship with God at the moment he first receives Christ as Savior. Eternal life has a beginning, but no ending. Now, eternal life in the biblical sense is not the same as unending existence. Again, biblically speaking, we all will exist forever, but not everyone will be in a saving relationship with God, but will be separated from him in a spiritual sense. Universalists and Annihilationists will disagree with that of course, but from the standpoint of Eternal condemnation those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior will not have eternal life but will continue to exist forever in a state of separation from God. The point being that what the Bible refers to as eternal life has a beginning but no ending.
What you are saying is that if something has no ending then it has to have had no beginning. But that argument doesn't hold up. For instance, the new heavens and earth as mentioned in Revelation will have a beginning but will have no ending. Something can have a beginning and having once come into existence, continue to exist forever. At least as far as the Bible is concerned.
Another example. The concept of eternal life. Biblically speaking, a person obtains eternal life, which is a reference to life in a saving relationship with God at the moment he first receives Christ as Savior. Eternal life has a beginning, but no ending. Now, eternal life in the biblical sense is not the same as unending existence. Again, biblically speaking, we all will exist forever, but not everyone will be in a saving relationship with God, but will be separated from him in a spiritual sense. Universalists and Annihilationists will disagree with that of course, but from the standpoint of Eternal condemnation those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior will not have eternal life but will continue to exist forever in a state of separation from God. The point being that what the Bible refers to as eternal life has a beginning but no ending.
this is not about what any specific religion teaches.
God is not proprietary. any more than gravity is proprietary. or air.
humans are humans, the soul is the soul, regardless of which particular path of "religion and spirituality" a person chooses. "how things work" is how they work for everyone. religion does not change that.
What you are saying is that if something has no ending then it has to have had no beginning. But that argument doesn't hold up. For instance, the new heavens and earth as mentioned in Revelation will have a beginning but will have no ending. Something can have a beginning and having once come into existence, continue to exist forever. At least as far as the Bible is concerned.
Another example. The concept of eternal life. Biblically speaking, a person obtains eternal life, which is a reference to life in a saving relationship with God at the moment he first receives Christ as Savior. Eternal life has a beginning, but no ending. Now, eternal life in the biblical sense is not the same as unending existence. Again, biblically speaking, we all will exist forever, but not everyone will be in a saving relationship with God, but will be separated from him in a spiritual sense. Universalists and Annihilationists will disagree with that of course, but from the standpoint of Eternal condemnation those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior will not have eternal life but will continue to exist forever in a state of separation from God. The point being that what the Bible refers to as eternal life has a beginning but no ending.
i agree that we all exist forever,
and that runs in both directions.
forever can not run in just one direction. it is not logically possible.
i have no desire to reference or discuss specific religious teachings, just our own beliefs in our own words as put forth in the opening post and topic of this thread. and regarding bold above, "eternal life" and "unending existence" and "exist forever" all mean the same thing to me.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-05-2020 at 11:07 PM..
this is not about what any specific religion teaches.
God is not proprietary. any more than gravity is proprietary. or air.
humans are humans, the soul is the soul, regardless of which particular path of "religion and spirituality" a person chooses. "how things work" is how they work for everyone. religion does not change that.
so your whole line of logic is based on a soul. One that doesn't exist as religion religion teaches to most people anyway.
My line of logic, because I am stupid, has to start at sorting a soul ... so here goes ... if we assume that they have it correct that we see 5% on the universe than its ok to assume that we see 5% of you. That leaves 95% to be your soul. I mean we can cut that by two factors (we might say 3 or 4) of ten and still have it hold true. Maybe that is the thing that goes one and/or was always here?
There are counter arguments for saying no, but yes/no would be on almost equal footing.
Ok, soul sorted out ... but forever? why forever and not just for the life of this universe?
so your whole line of logic is based on a soul. One that doesn't exist as religion religion teaches to most people anyway.
My line of logic, because I am stupid, has to start at sorting a soul ... so here goes ... if we assume that they have it correct that we see 5% on the universe than its ok to assume that we see 5% of you. That leaves 95% to be your soul. I mean we can cut that by two factors (we might say 3 or 4) of ten and still have it hold true. Maybe that is the thing that goes one and/or was always here?
There are counter arguments for saying no, but yes/no would be on almost equal footing.
Ok, soul sorted out ... but forever? why forever and not just for the life of this universe?
a universe has a beginning and an end.
the soul does not.
a universe has attributes of "time" and "space."
the soul does not
view expressed in post above asks about the "life of the universe"
"born" "life" and "death" are a package deal.
if something is born and lives it also dies, whether that is a physical human or a physical universe.
the soul always was and always will be. not so for this or that universe.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-06-2020 at 07:15 AM..
a universe has a beginning and an end.
the soul does not.
a universe has attributes of "time" and "space."
the soul does not
Do you see where you logic is basing you belief on an unknown? That process is not reliable tzaph. You conclusion is fine, based on what you know. But its based on what you don't know is the real issue here, not how you describe the soul.
example.
The universe has traits. And a soul doesn't have any traits? if a soul doesn't have traits, meaning it does not interact with this universe in anyway, then it is not there. If there is one thing I can say is outside of our time and space, its something that is not there. I can say that with certainty.
Do you see where you logic is basing you belief on an unknown? That process is not reliable tzaph. You conclusion is fine, based on what you know. But its based on what you don't know is the real issue here, not how you describe the soul.
example.
The universe has traits. And a soul doesn't have any traits? if a soul doesn't have traits, meaning it does not interact with this universe in anyway, then it is not there. If there is one thing I can say is outside of our time and space, its something that is not there. I can say that with certainty.
it is not an unknown.
the soul is known.
of course the soul participates in the universe. analogy: you inhabit your house, but you are not part of your house. you can live in many different houses. your existence does not depend on which house you inhabit because you move in and out of houses.
it is inaccurate and incorrect to equate "known" with "what science can currently measure or validate."
of course the soul participates in the universe. you inhabit your house, but you are not part of your house. you can live in many different houses. your existence does not depend on which house you inhabit because you move in and out of houses.
it is inaccurate and incorrect to equate "known" with "what science can currently measure or validate."
Very true.
If I was invisible and you see the house. It would be a house in every way through time. You could give me some attributes based on how the house changes over time. Doors opening, stuff moving around, thing going on and off kind of things.
If I had no attributes, The house would be in static equilibrium. meaning nothing changes. It would not "act" like a house at all.
To you last line. You focusing on "science doesn't know everything". Try to focus more on how science sorts through the things we are living in. I will even say you god. Science is only using how your god is living to describe what we see. Thats all.
Focus on the process. Most people are fine if there is a god, in fact, most people believe in [something more] because a lot of them have some evidence and [nothing more] has absolutely no evidence. we could care far less about god than things like oppression.
with regards to "reliable," it is not "reliable" to claim that known and unknown are the same for every person. Also, known and unknown are not the same for a single person over the course of their own lifetime. if a person is visiting a country for the first time, then there is a lot that is "unknown" about that country for that person. however when a person has visited the country many many times, then much more is "known" by them.
same for a soul that has incarnated many many times on planet earth, much more is known by that soul than is known by a soul visiting earth for the first time. the more lifetimes a soul has had on earth, the more they know about the system of the soul.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-06-2020 at 07:45 AM..
it is not "reliable" to claim that known and unknown are the same for every person. Also, known and unknown are not the same for a single person over the course of their own lifetime.
you are 100 % correct. So how do we tell who is who? What experiences are reliable?
But do you see how you are shifting off of using what we are learning about your god using what we both experience?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
