Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

... I believe that no one or thing created God. God is eternal ...

---

Yes Fred : you BELIEVE that. And so you may from me.

But there is no scientific - nor logical - support for anything to be eternal.
The reverse is true : it is highly unlikely and illogical for anything to be eternal.
Science shows us that there is NOTHING that is eternal : everything had a start and has an end.

For some "stuff" that period is in pico seconds. For other "stuff" it is in giga years.
But so far nothing has shown to be eternal.

So your statement is incorrect : You stated that "God" is eternal.
I say that you BELIEVE that "God" is eternal...

:)

.

.

Cred,
That IS what I said.
Why did you find a need to repeat it?
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Yes Fred : you BELIEVE that. And so you may from me.

But there is no scientific - nor logical - support for anything to be eternal.
The reverse is true : it is highly unlikely and illogical for anything to be eternal.
Science shows us that there is NOTHING that is eternal : everything had a start and has an end.

For some "stuff" that period is in pico seconds. For other "stuff" it is in giga years.
But so far nothing has shown to be eternal.

So your statement is incorrect : You stated that "God" is eternal.
I say that you BELIEVE that "God" is eternal ....

:)

.

---

Credendovidis, question?

What about the theory in thermodynamics, that energy is neither created nor destroyed? Energy seems pretty eternal, and yes I do realise that it is constantly "shifting" or changing from one form to another. Nonetheless, a valid idea of eturnal. However rather unfair since there really is not enough evidence of the theory to be 100% sure, but it could be a possibility. So your statement inturen could be just as "wrong".

Personally, I'd say we don't know enough and have enough evidence to prve anything, so how can we ever be right or wrong?? There is no right or wrong only possibilities. In the end, the one that turnes out to be correct, is the most plossible. But then people will probably interpret the evidence differently any way. So how could we find any suitable agreeable conclution?? No?

Let me know. :)

Nestorian,
Very good post indeed!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

What about the theory in thermodynamics, that energy is neither created nor destroyed?? Energy seems pretty eternal, and yes i do realise that it is constantly "shifting" or changing from one form to another. Nontheless, a valid idea of eturnal. However rather unfair since there really is not enough evidence of the theory to be 100% sure, but it could be a possibility. So your statement inturen could be just as "wrong".

---

No : my statement was not "wrong"!!
The question is here more : what is energy? Actually humanity has no idea what energy exactly is ! What most of us call energy is a format that actually is based on the difference between two energy levels.
We also know that the end of the universe will be in the far future, when all matter will have returned into it's energy state, and when all energy will be evenly distributed, leaving nothing to do with the 'real' energy.
A situation that - for easier understanding - can be seen as similar to temperature being evenly distributed, leaving nothing to do with that temperature. Energy evenly distributed is nothing and means nothing, and can not be used for anything. So energy is irrelevant as argument in a discussion on eternal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

Personally, i'd say we don't know enough and have enough evidence to prve anything, so how can we ever be right or wrong??? There is no right or wrong only possibilities. In the end, the one that turnes out to be correct, is the most plossible. But then people will probably interpret the evidence differently any way. So how could we find any suitable agreeable conclution??? no?? Let me know.

---

Read what I stated :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by credendovidis

Yes Fred : you BELIEVE that. And so you may from me.

But there is no scientific - nor logical - support for anything to be eternal.
The reverse is true : it is highly unlikely and illogical for anything to be eternal.
Science shows us that there is NOTHING that is eternal : everything had a start and has an end.

For some "stuff" that period is in pico seconds. For other "stuff" it is in giga years.
But so far nothing has shown to be eternal.

So your statement is incorrect : You stated that "God" is eternal.
I say that you BELIEVE that "God" is eternal ....

---

The difference is the CLAIM that involves the existence of a deity called "God", and another CLAIM that this "God" is eternal.

A : first of all there is no OSE that "God" exists.
B : nor is there any OSE that this acclaimed "God" is eternal!!

As I stated already - and repeat again here - and please Fred (Arcura) : read this carefully !

Fred may BELIEVE that "God" exists and even that this "God" is eternal.
But BELIEF it has to be, as there is no OSE for either claim.

:)

.

.

Cred,
I do "believe" that there is at the least ONE thing that is eternal and that is a being we call God who made all that is seen and unseen.
Do you believe that I believe that?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No : my statement was not "wrong" !!!

The question is here more : what is energy? Actually humanity has no idea what energy exactly is ! What most of us call energy is a format that actually is based on the difference between two energy levels.

We also know that the end of the universe will be in the far future, when all matter will have returned into it's energy state, and when all energy will be evenly distributed, leaving nothing to do with the 'real' energy.

Energy evenly distributed is nothing and means nothing, and can not be used for anything.


Read what I stated :

The difference is the CLAIM that involves the existence of a deity called "God", and another CLAIM that this "God" is eternal.

A : first of all there is no OSE that "God" exists.
B : nor is there any OSE that this acclaimed "God" is eternal !!!

Fred may BELIEVE that "God" exists and even that this "God" is eternal.
But BELIEF it has to be, as there is no OSE for either claim.

:)

.

.

---

:) Credendovidis, Funny you should say that you are not wrong, for right and wrong are simply put, differences in opinion. Therefor, you are wrong, even if only in the mind of one person. Same as you can be right in the mind of another. The reality is, right and wrong are just lables, to try and help us express ourselves and experiences.

Further more, since you yourself can not produce the evidence "OSE" with out the aid of quotes from scientists who wrote their findings in books, or internet sites; you yourself only have a bible in your hand to prove your point. No? It is possible, and weather you deny it, or accept it, I can always "choose" to "believe" it as such. Personal interpretation my friend is not as easy to understand as it might seem.

So I guess, nothing is eturnal? Therefor, NOTHING is eturnal, get it? It's a paradox or contradiction, because one can not be with out the other. Though they are considered opposites. So neither can be if the other is. (rather harry potterish here but: One can not live while the other survives.) Eh, how about that. Never thought I'd get to use that like that. (Depending on how you define eturnal.)

So, even though you say there is not "OSE" that GOD exists, I'd like to bring up the ideas you are bringing to us, about energy and such, Where is your "OSE". In other words, prove to us your "claims" to science, with out pictures (like the many paintings of Jessus, and other religious events.), with out coppying someone else's words, or paraphrasing, or with out anything but "OSE", right here, right now. I want to see it, touch it, sense it. Can you do that? You, with what you have? No new age tech involved, build everything from scratch and figure it out yourself. Can you, would you? Since I can, but simple have my mind on other tings, I can't say you have any "OSE".

So does that mean that nothing is, ever was, or ever will be? Because "OSE" is not eturnal either, it wouldn't matter if you had, have, or will have it. It's plossible based upon whay you've given me, which is in deed "nothing", as you would have me believe, no?

There is no spoon brother, only possibilities. (did you get why I put possibilities there? What I really mean? I think you'd see that is quit to your delight, and also not.)

As always Cred, you are very interesting to talk to.
Peace be with you brother.

Actually Cred never said nothing is eternal. I almost certain he will say he doesn't know what is beyond or if anything is beyond our universe. I don't know yet, is an acceptable answer to a non-believer. We don't have to fill in the gaps of our knowledge by saying god did it.

michealb
Right, we don't have to fill in the gaps by saying God did it.
But I hope you don't mind if I say God created the universe.
I say so because I believe he did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Actually Cred never said nothing is eternal. I almost certain he will say he doesn't know what is beyond or if anything is beyond our universe. I don't know yet, is an acceptable answer to a non-believer. We don't have to fill in the gaps of our knowledge by saying god did it.

---

No I suppose he did not. But it makes for interesting throies. What way is better than to just tosse them out there, even if you just make them up on the spot. ;) We may want to simply consider just living rather than answering such things. And every one has their own answers any way. We can't save any one but ourselves.

Peace be with you brother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Yes Fred : you BELIEVE that. And so you may from me.

But there is no scientific - nor logical - support for anything to be eternal.
The reverse is true : it is highly unlikely and illogical for anything to be eternal.
Science shows us that there is NOTHING that is eternal : everything had a start and has an end.

For some "stuff" that period is in pico seconds. For other "stuff" it is in giga years.
But so far nothing has shown to be eternal.

So your statement is incorrect : You stated that "God" is eternal.
I say that you BELIEVE that "God" is eternal ....

:)

.

.

---

I don't see how your claim that nothing is eternal has any greater epistemic standing than Fred's claim. Fred says that he believes that God is eternal; you believe that nothing is eternal. Fred lacks OSE for his claim and you lack OSE for your claim. (Since you are working with a universal quantifier, you would have to have ascertained that for every single thing that exists, that thing is not eternal. This cannot be done in a finite time, and so you lack OSE for the claim.)

In order for your claim to be justified scientifically, it would have to have been experimentally confirmed that for any x, x is not eternal. But, of course, there are a lot of x's out there in the universe. The most you are entitled to, then, is the claim that you believe that nothing is eternal. Moreover, the claims of science are probabilistic, not apodicitic, and so the most you could say regarding Fred's claim is that we should assign it a low probability of being true (say .1). The most you can say for your claim is that it has a high probability of being true (say asymptotically approaching 1). But, of course, you'd have to argue a compelling case for these probability assignments (which are highly favorable to your view). Absent that, both your claim and Fred's have equal epistemic standing. There is certainly nothing "illogical" about the claim that there exists at least one x such that x is eternal. This violates no rule of logic whatsoever.

There's more than a little hyperbole swirling around on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

cred,
I do "believe" that there is at the least ONE thing that is eternal and that is a being we call God who made all that is seen and unseen.
Do you believe that I believe that?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Fred : I do not have a problem with what you BELIEVE.

I reacted to that small add-on in your post that suggested that you do not only BELIEVE your "God" is eternal, but that your acclaimed "God" IS eternal.

Both your "God's existence and his/her/it's being eternal" are entirely within the limits of your BELIEF !
At least I never saw any OSE for either claim.

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Actually Cred never said nothing is eternal. I almost certain he will say he doesn't know what is beyond or if anything is beyond our universe. I don't know yet, is an acceptable answer to a non-believer. We don't have to fill in the gaps of our knowledge by saying god did it.

---

Indeed it is almost sure that it is impossible to know if there is anything but our universe. We live in our universe and can not know IF there is anything more than that universe.
Our universe is not "filled" with space and time, but with spacetime, and that limits our field of reference.
Even in the hypothetical case that there is anything "outside" our universe, we can not be aware of that, as we can only know of what happens within our own spacetime.

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

I don't see how your claim that nothing is eternal has any greater epistemic standing than Fred's claim.

---

Science tells us that even protons and neutrons have a half-life-time, measured in giga years. So in time all matter will disappear back into energy.
Energy is just like a disturbance of a "field". Once it equals out in time, it is completely useless, and can be assumed as non-existing.
Therefore nothing can be eternal.

May be you should see the universe as a single firework analogy : first you have the explosion with bang and lights - quickly expanding and soon extinguishing, till you have only remaining materials and gasses left - still spreading and getting colder and colder.

In that same analogy our current universe is still just "seconds" after the explosion with the lights of the explosion still visible.
My "no eternal" refers to the situation several hours (if not years) AFTER the explosion (giga years).

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

1. Science tells us that even protons and neutrons have a half-life-time, measured in giga years. So in time all matter will disappear back into energy.

2. Energy is just like a disturbance of a "field". Once it equals out in time, it is completely useless, and can be assumed as non-existing.

3. Therefore nothing can be eternal.

---

3 doesn't follow from 1 & 2. Is there a suppressed premise here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

3 doesn't follow from 1 & 2. Is there a suppressed premise here?

---

1 : all matter will change back into energy in time
2 : what we call energy is actually a difference in energy levels within an energy "field". Once energy levels equal out, you can regard energy as non-existing.
3 : without matter and energy what is there to be eternal?

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

1 : all matter will change back into energy in time
2 : what we call energy is actually a difference in energy levels within an energy "field". Once energy levels equal out, you can regard energy as non-existing.
3 : without matter and energy what is there to be eternal?

:)

.

.

---

Okay, this still isn't a valid argument, but we'll let that go for now. I suppose the obvious answer one might propose to your concluding question is: God. I mean, if we're trading in a kind of rhetorical jousting, then there is no good reason for one not to say that God is what's left to be eternal. After all, there is no OSE to prove that for every x that exists, that x is or is composed of matter and energy (this can't be empirically verified since there are too many x's). And besides, there are existents that we know a lot about that are neither matter nor energy, abstract entities like numbers, sets of numbers, propositions, etc. These exist, they have properties, and we can make truth-evaluable claims about them. And I know a lot of mathematicians who would argue that they are eternal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

.... I suppose the obvious answer one might propose to your concluding question is: God.

---

The usual "christian" answer...
If you don't have an answer, if you simply don't know : just call it "God"...

:rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

The usual "christian" answer ...
If you don't have an answer, if you simply don't know : just call it "God" ...

:rolleyes:

.

.

---

Did you read the rest of the post? If you don't like God, then let's try this:

Your question: What's left to be eternal?

Answer: Numbers, sets of numbers, propositions.

Does this work better for you? Not too "Christian", I hope.

Akoue.
LOL
Fred