The nature of eternity and time ?

[COLA76]

I think the problem is that there are two different starting assumptions. 1. The universe is eternal. 2. The universe is temporal. These inherently do not mesh, and therefore debating from these two assumptions is pointless. I think a more pressing question would be is the universe eternal in the sense put forth by Jim or is it temporal? I agree with Jim that is the universe was eternal, then there is not need for a creator(obviously). But what evidence is there that the universe is eternal, when the conventional wisdom has always been an assumption that there was a beginning. Even in the scientific community.

[JimL]

I think the problem is that there are two different starting assumptions. 1. The universe is eternal. 2. The universe is temporal. These inherently do not mesh, and therefore debating from these two assumptions is pointless.

I disagree that an eternal entity can not also have the property of motion, and motion is that by which we understand time, be it abstract or real. So the universe need not be either or, eternal or temporal. As I pointed out before, whether you call the eternal entity God or whether you call it the universe, in either case it must be of an active nature, it must have the property of motion, else it could not change, it could not create.

I think a more pressing question would be is the universe eternal in the sense put forth by Jim or is it temporal? I agree with Jim that is the universe was eternal, then there is not need for a creator(obviously). But what evidence is there that the universe is eternal, when the conventional wisdom has always been an assumption that there was a beginning. Even in the scientific community.

What you see as a beginning to the universe only pertains to our little particular piece of spacetime which like the sun, the earth, a tree, or even yourself, has a beginning and an end, but the coming into and going out of being of these forms of the eternal does nothing to diminish the eternal whole itself of which they are a part. We can see this same nature of things at work in our own universe as everything that comes into being within it perseveres for a certain duration until it ceases to exist but the universe itself loses nothing in the process, only a change of forms.

[shunyadragon]

I think the problem is that there are two different starting assumptions. 1. The universe is eternal. 2. The universe is temporal. These inherently do not mesh, and therefore debating from these two assumptions is pointless. I think a more pressing question would be is the universe eternal in the sense put forth by Jim or is it temporal? I agree with Jim that is the universe was eternal, then there is not need for a creator(obviously). But what evidence is there that the universe is eternal, when the conventional wisdom has always been an assumption that there was a beginning. Even in the scientific community.

False, it has never been an assumption that our existence which includes our universe has a beginning. There is total agreement at present that our universe has a beginning. Some do consider the universe to have begun as a singularity, but the existence of the singularity and how it formed are unanswered. This alone indicates an existence prior to our universe. the predominant view among cosmologists is the 'possible' existence of multiverses, and not the less likely view of the existence of only one universe.

[COLA76]

I disagree that an eternal entity can not also have the property of motion, and motion is that by which we understand time, be it abstract or real. So the universe need not be either or, eternal or temporal. As I pointed out before, whether you call the eternal entity God or whether you call it the universe, in either case it must be of an active nature, it must have the property of motion, else it could not change, it could not create.

I don't know what definitions you are using, but my statements are based on what you find in the dictionary.

Eternal - without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Temporal - enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory

Both an eternal universe and a temporal universe can contain matter and can conform to the laws of physics we know (and the ones we don't know) today. As I have said before, if the universe is eternal I agree that there is no need for a creator. However, if the universe is temporal there must be a creator or immovable mover.

What you see as a beginning to the universe only pertains to our little particular piece of spacetime which like the sun, the earth, a tree, or even yourself, has a beginning and an end, but the coming into and going out of being of these forms of the eternal does nothing to diminish the eternal whole itself of which they are a part. We can see this same nature of things at work in our own universe as everything that comes into being within it perseveres for a certain duration until it ceases to exist but the universe itself loses nothing in the process, only a change of forms.

I understand that you assume the universe is eternal, but why? Is it simply that you don't believe in God, and so an eternal universe is your only option? Or is there any other reason(s) that an eternal universe makes more sense to you?

[shunyadragon]

I don't know what definitions you are using, but my statements are based on what you find in the dictionary.

Eternal - without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Temporal - enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory

Both an eternal universe and a temporal universe can contain matter and can conform to the laws of physics we know (and the ones we don't know) today. As I have said before, if the universe is eternal I agree that there is no need for a creator. However, if the universe is temporal there must be a creator or immovable mover.

The universe can be temporal withing a greater cosmos that is eternal.

I disagree that an eternal cosmos would mean there is no need for a Creator. the greater cosmos may be eternal with the Creator.

I understand that you assume the universe is eternal, but why? Is it simply that you don't believe in God, and so an eternal universe is your only option? Or is there any other reason(s) that an eternal universe makes more sense to you?

Most cosmologists consider the greater cosmos containing our universe most likely eternal and infinite.

[COLA76]

Most cosmologists consider the greater cosmos containing our universe most likely eternal and infinite.

I'm not sure what you are reading to allow you to make this statement. All cosmologists recognize the difficulty in asserting our universe came from nothing. In an attempt to reconcile the breakdown in logic, some cosmologist have put forth a theory about a greater eternal cosmos, which has no more validity scientifically than saying that God made out current universe from nothing.

the greater cosmos may be eternal with the Creator.

Please explain how the Creator can be co-eternal with a greater, physical cosmos.

[JimL]

I don't know what definitions you are using, but my statements are based on what you find in the dictionary.

Eternal - without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Temporal - enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory

Both an eternal universe and a temporal universe can contain matter and can conform to the laws of physics we know (and the ones we don't know) today. As I have said before, if the universe is eternal I agree that there is no need for a creator. However, if the universe is temporal there must be a creator or immovable mover.

As I previously mentioned eternal defines the whole of existence, but logic does not deny the possibility of change within an eternal whole. That was the point of my analogy with the universe that we know of. Things within our universe come into and go out of being, but these temporal existences, these changes of form within it, do nothing to diminish or add unto the existence of the whole. So we can think of an eternal universe in the same terms, though there are temporal forms that change within the eternal whole, the eternal whole itself never diminishes. It is eternal in itself, in its totality, and temporal in its changing forms. It makes no sense to say an immovable mover, since being immovable, being static, means no change, means no creative act is possible.

I understand that you assume the universe is eternal, but why? Is it simply that you don't believe in God, and so an eternal universe is your only option? Or is there any other reason(s) that an eternal universe makes more sense to you?

I assume it to be eternal, not because I don't believe in God but because it is the only assumption that is logical. An immovable mover does not make logical sense, it cannot create if it cannot move, if it cannot act, but from out of an eternal entity of infinite motion, infinite change, there can arise infinite and temporal forms whose comings and goings do nothing to diminish or add unto the eternal whole.

[COLA76]

It makes no sense to say an immovable mover, since being immovable, being static, means no change, means no creative act is possible.

The term immovable mover implies not that the entity cannot move, but that it creates without being acted upon.

As I previously mentioned eternal defines the whole of existence, but logic does not deny the possibility of change within an eternal whole. That was the point of my analogy with the universe that we know of. Things within our universe come into and go out of being, but these temporal existences, these changes of form within it, do nothing to diminish the existence of the whole.

I get it, you don't need to repeat yourself again. Temporal elements within an eternal system that do not effect the system as a whole. So the universe is eternal. Why is that the only logical assumption?

[JimL]

The term immovable mover implies not that the entity cannot move, but that it creates without being acted upon.

If an eternal entity creates without being acted upon then you are describing what is observed in the world in which you live, and if that world is eternal then it is superfluous to posit the existence of another infinitely active creator of it.

I get it, you don't need to repeat yourself again. Temporal elements within an eternal system that do not effect the system as a whole. So the universe is eternal. Why is that the only logical assumption?

As above, if infinite motion is the nature of the eternal entity then whether you call that entity God or you call it the universe is irrelevant for there is no need of one in order to create the other.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure what you are reading to allow you to make this statement. All cosmologists recognize the difficulty in asserting our universe came from nothing. In an attempt to reconcile the breakdown in logic, some cosmologist have put forth a theory about a greater eternal cosmos, which has no more validity scientifically than saying that God made out current universe from nothing.

No cosmologists do not even consider the possibility that anything including our universe ever came from nothing. Our universe like everything else in our universe probably has beginnings and endings in a greater cosmos, which is eternal and infinite and of course did not come from nothing.

What are your qualifications for questioning the scientific validity of the view of cosmologists? No, not some, but by far most cosmologists consider the greater cosmos eternal and infinite based on the current knowledge of physics and cosmology.

No, there is not attempt of cosmologists to reconcile any breakdown in logic here.

Please explain how the Creator can be co-eternal with a greater, physical cosmos.

Odd question, I personally would not attempt to explain the creator. From the ancient Newtonian view of archeac Christian thinking that tries to define God, yes you may have a problem with this, but I have no problem with the greater existence being eternal and infinitely co-eternal with God, and our universe coming into being as a part of this greater cosmos, because I do not try to define God nor his relationship to God's Creation with limited human reasoning.

[JimL]

No cosmologists do not even consider the possibility that anything including our universe ever came from nothing. Our universe like everything else in our universe probably has beginnings and endings in a greater cosmos, which is eternal and infinite and of course did not come from nothing.

What are your qualifications for questioning the scientific validity of the view of cosmologists? No, not some, but by far most cosmologists consider the greater cosmos eternal and infinite based on the current knowledge of physics and cosmology.

No, there is not attempt of cosmologists to reconcile any breakdown in logic here.

Odd question, I personally would not attempt to explain the creator. From the ancient Newtonian view of archeac Christian thinking that tries to define God, yes you may have a problem with this, but I have no problem with the greater existence being eternal and infinitely co-eternal with God, and our universe coming into being as a part of this greater cosmos, because I do not try to define God nor his relationship to God's Creation with limited human reasoning.

I don't think that Cola76 was asking you to explain the creator Shunya, I think he was asking you to explain what you mean when you say that an eternal entity or God can be the creator of another eternal entity or the universe. The statement piqued my curiosity as well. If you believe the universe or greater cosmos itself to be eternal and infinite then it what sense do you take it to be also created?

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that Cola76 was asking you to explain the creator Shunya, I think he was asking you to explain what you mean when you say that an eternal entity or God can be the creator of another eternal entity or the universe. The statement piqued my curiosity as well. If you believe the universe or greater cosmos itself to be eternal and infinite then it what sense do you take it to be also created?

Well, you cannot explain the relationship between the Creator and Creation without explaining the Creator.

I believe if you read my post carefully you will understand my view. We have unfortunate preconceptions, especially traditional theists, as to what the nature of God must be or is, or how and why our logic and knowledge can justify whether God(s) exist or not. I definitely not care to rationalize, or second guess, or whatever, the relationship between the 'Source' and Creation is, but nontheless I will provide a possible description of a scenario. It is actually a repeat of the what was in the last post.

The nature of 'existence' which would includes what we may call the 'infinite and eternal greater cosmos' is essentially co-eternal with the 'Source' some call God(s). I have no problem with accepting this concept as a theist. Actually I feel there are traps of contradictions in the traditional theists view that try to 'jerry rig' time, Creator, and Creation relationships using contorted human logic and ancient preconceptions.

[JimL]

Well, you cannot explain the relationship between the Creator and Creation without explaining the Creator.

I believe if you read my post carefully you will understand my view. We have unfortunate preconceptions, especially traditional theists, as to what the nature of God must be or is, or how and why our logic and knowledge can justify whether God(s) exist or not. I definitely not care to rationalize, or second guess, or whatever, the relationship between the 'Source' and Creation is, but nontheless I will provide a possible description of a scenario. It is actually a repeat of the what was in the last post.

The nature of 'existence' which would includes what we may call the 'infinite and eternal greater cosmos' is essentially co-eternal with the 'Source' some call God(s). I have no problem with accepting this concept as a theist. Actually I feel there are traps of contradictions in the traditional theists view that try to 'jerry rig' time, Creator, and Creation relationships using contorted human logic and ancient preconceptions.

Not sure Im following you here. Are you suggesting that there are two distinct eternal entities, God as well as the material world?

[shunyadragon]

Not sure Im following you here. Are you suggesting that there are two distinct eternal entities, God as well as the material world?

If your not following reread my posts.

No, not necessarily. Look at it another way, Creation could be sort of the mirror image of God. Simply God exists, therefore Creation exists. Traditional theists get into trouble several ways trying to dance around this issue. First, Biblically in the Genesis narrative there was existence, time, angels and such prior to what we would call God's Creation. God operates within a time frame and within 'existence' Biblically without any reference to a beginning or end of the angels and the existence around God. The references of beginnings and endings are only in reference to the specific physical universe we are in.

[JimL]

If your not following reread my posts.

No, not necessarily. Look at it another way, Creation could be sort of the mirror image of God. Simply God exists, therefore Creation exists.

That which for all intents and purposes is no more than a belief is for that very reason impossible for the believer to define. The above is no more than to say that: "Simply God exists, therefore God exists." To say that the eternal universe is a mirror image of the eternal God is no more than to give the title of God to the universe. There are no mirrors, there is only one eternal thing, which if you prefer to call it God, thats fine, but there is no distinction in it, no creation.

Traditional theists get into trouble several ways trying to dance around this issue. First, Biblically in the Genesis narrative there was existence, time, angels and such prior to what we would call God's Creation. God operates within a time frame and within 'existence' Biblically without any reference to a beginning or end of the angels and the existence around God. The references of beginnings and endings are only in reference to the specific physical universe we are in.

The Genesis narrative is about the beginning of time only in so far as our particular universe is concerned, I agree, but that beginning, its coming into being within the greater eternal cosmos, is not to be considered a creation, at least not by my understanding of the word, unless the creator is distinct from the so called creation. You seem to be confusing the greater cosmos, the eternally existing cosmos from out of which our universe was born with your idea of God and thereby making a distinction between the eternal and the changing forms within it. The references to beginnings and endings, though they do apply to the universe we are in, but they also apply to the cosmos as an eternal whole.