K, so we can argue till the cows come home, about this but there is a lot of good feed back from the last one I had, I like to hear others ideas. I"m going to simplify this one though, to avoid loosing the topic.

Lets go with the idea that some scientific professionals believe that "the human race" was a product of evolution from monkeys. Awww so cute and cudly, ok, get off me. Haha, just kidding guys and gals. ;) Then there is the people who believe that there is not enough evidence for that theory to be FACT. So it is a possiblity but not fact.

Then there are those who believe in the "WORD of GOD", the teachings of the bible. The good book, or the book you find a hotel drawer?? Rather odd considering some of the things people do in those rooms eh?? haha, again kidding. ;) In this book, people are said to have been created in GODs own image; if you have a direct quote I'd very much apprecitate it if you'd post it; thus people assume that GOD created us to look like GOD. (reason i don't say him while reffering to GOD is because i don't believe God is any specified gender, and very well may be both or none.) So some of these people agree that GOD created us by means of Adam and Eve in a matter of days, where as some believe that GOD created us by means of evolution. There is more but we'll find that later.

So my original question is kind of deul in purpose. 1ST, What does the bible mean by "created in his own image"??

2ND, Is the bible more of a book of Myths, fables and stories that are ment to inspire the "word of GOD"?? NOt a book of fact.

3RD, I would aregue that our race has bin evolving since it was upone the earth, however, it seems that our physique is perfected, while our mentality is changing. Yes, I believe that the people that lived in the days of Jessus, were less intelegant, not because they couldn't be more so, but because there wasn't as many resources to use to gain knowledge as fast and largly as we do today.

Ok, I want a clean fight! No kicking bighting or boggie wiping, it's just unpleasant. HAHA, OK, easy goes it and try to have some fun. Lets hear what you all got for me. ;)

Created in his image actually means attributes.

God Created Man in His Image, and the Fall

God "The Creator", Man "The Artist" Created in His Image.

So the human race is supposed to look like it's creator, and it's not even slightly plossible that it's referring to the idea that GOD had an image in his mind of what we should look like, then presto we are there as GOD so saw us in his imagination. I mean really he'd have to have one or nothing would be right?

The Bible is not talking about physical attributes when it says we are created in God's image. Our Spirit is created in God's image. God is a spiritual being, man is a being that consists of Spirit, Soul, and Body. So man's spirit being is what has been created in God's image.

Exactly -spirit and soul.

I doubt if according to the Jewish myth, that GodAlmighty created humans in the image and likeness of himself... human beings suffer much from diseases such as autism, schizophrenia, cancer, mental illness, on and on and in addition, from famine, tsuname, poverty, on and on... I don't think that GodAlmighty spends any time suffering, and in fact, won't do anything to alleviate suffering not the fault of the individual... therefore, GodAlmighty is not loving or all powerful. We see that in the story of Job... GodAlmighty sent extreme suffering into his life to *test him*.

GodAlmighty is a Sadist, in fact... there is no love there based on the facts, and he enjoys innocent people's suffering.

Created in his image was before the fall... before the suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

3RD, I would aregue that our race has bin evolving since it was upone the earth, however, it seems that our physique is perfected, while our mentality is changing. Yes, i believe that the people that lived in the days of Jessus, were less intelegant, not because they couldn't be more so, but because there wasn't as many resources to use to gain knowlege as fast and largly as we do today.

---

Mentality may have changed but I do not believe that we are more intelligent or less intelligent than previous generations.

Can you actually imagine the architectural designs of the historical buildings of the past and to think they did not have AutoCad to aid them?Imagine the brain must have had been used far better than we are now,for the mere fact that,Now a lot of work is being done by programs/programmed machines, where we make less use of our brain,hence possibly our brains are developing less than ancient generations.

Their physical strength may have been even greater as they did manual labor more than some of us ever would.
And another thing is that our younger generations are so dependent on machines to do their mental work, I rather think that parts of the brain do not develop as much as it should.

Guess I am going far far away from the topic,but I do think if we were to compare the tools we have at hand and what they had at hand, and then compare the work they did, they maybe more intelligent and capable of greater things than we are.

We in fact with all the knowledge we have are destroying ourselves with use/abuse of all things that harm us.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

Mentality may have changed but I do not believe that we are more intelligent or less intelligent than previous generations.

Can you actually imagine the architectural designs of the historical buildings of the past and to think they did not have AutoCad to aid them?Imagine the brain must have had been used far better than we are now,for the mere fact that,Now a lot of work is being done by programs/programmed machines, where we make less use of our brain,hence quite possibly our brains are developing less than ancient generations.

Their physical strength may have been even greater as they did manual labor more than some of us ever would.
And another thing is that our younger generations are so dependent on machines to do their mental work, I rather think that parts of the brain do not develop as much as it should.

Guess I am going far far away from the topic,but I do think if we were to compare the tools we have at hand and what they had at hand, and then compare the work they did, they maybe more intelligent and capable of greater things than we are.

We in fact with all the knowledge we have are destroying ourselves with use/abuse of all things that harm us.

:)

---

Ah, you my friend, speak true and wise.

And I agree, our race is being rather unwise with the way it is taking care of the power it has. I suppose the only thing we can do to change that is, do what we ourselves can to help the environment. Because with out it being just as it is, then chances are we won't be at all.

Peace be with you.

Gen 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
(KJV)

Both likeness AND image.

This is what I found

Image - the powers with which each one of us is endowed by God from the first moment of our existence (free will, reason, sense of moral responsibility, etc.)

Likeness - making proper use of being in His image will allow us to acquire God's likeness, to be deified (assimilated to God through virtue).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I doubt if according to the Jewish myth, that GodAlmighty created humans in the image and likeness of himself.....human beings suffer much from diseases such as autism, schizophrenia, cancer, mental illness, on and on and in addition, from famine, tsuname, poverty, on and on.....I don't think that GodAlmighty spends any time suffering, and in fact, won't do anything to alleviate suffering not the fault of the individual...therefore, GodAlmighty is not loving or all powerful. We see that in the story of Job....GodAlmighty sent extreme suffering into his life to *test him*.

GodAlmighty is a Sadist, in fact....there is no love there based on the facts, and he enjoys innocent people's suffering.

---

You have zero understanding of the book of Job.

Satan basically issued a challenge to God: "You have no one on Earth who serves you because of integrity or love. You have bought Job's friendship by what you have given him. If you let me take that away, Job will curse you to your face."

Do you think God could ignore that challenge? After all, if no one serves Him because they really want to, then God has no right to rule, which is of course, Satan's position from the beginning of his rebellion.

After Job proved Satan wrong, God restored more to Job than he had to begin with. As far as Job's children were concerned, if they were following in their father's steps, then they have been in Heaven ever since.

You shouldn't make accusations based on a false understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

You shouldn't make accusations based on a false understanding.

---

One's understanding is all one knows; is it not? So how would one see that their understanding is wrong? Even if you prove them wrong, that may not change their understanding if they so choose to understand your "proof" as faulse. And you may want to realise that you are being a bit Hypocritical in stating the above. Because your perception is different from others, thus you will understand things differently. Some may agree with you, but in the end. There will probably be others who do not agree.
You may want to reconsider your statement. ;)

His statement is accurate. Job means exactly as he said and yes Choux walked away with a different interpretation but as galveston said it is inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

Lets go with the idea that some scientific professionals believe that "the human race" was a product of evolution from monkeys.

---

No scientific professional believes that "the human race" was a product of evolution from monkeys. The human race and monkeys share common ancestors. Just a couple more than we do with other animals. We even share ancestors with bananas and all other lifeforms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

Science Vs. Religion (GOD)

---

Science is not versus religion.
Science is about explanation and objective supporting evidence (OSE).
Religion is about belief without any OSE.
And therefore never the two will meet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestorian

GOD created man in his own image.

---

"God" created man in his own image??
The important question here is more : who "created" "God"??

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

You have zero understanding of the book of Job.

Satan basically issued a challenge to God: "You have no one on Earth who serves you because of integrity or love. You have bought Job's friendship by what you have given him. If you let me take that away, Job will curse you to your face."

Do you think God could ignore that challenge? After all, if no one serves Him because they really want to, then God has no right to rule, which is of course, Satan's position from the beginning of his rebellion.

After Job proved Satan wrong, God restored more to Job than he had to begin with. As far as Job's children were concerned, if they were following in their father's steps, then they have been in Heaven ever since.

You shouldn't make accusations based on a false understanding.

---

When I was in high school I drove a old beat up firebird, it was a red light monster faster than almost everyone else on the road but since I knew I wasn't the fastest I had something to prove because it wasn't all powerful. I would answer every challenge. Later I bought a nice corvette and I found I no longer needed to prove myself I had everything and nothing to gain by winning a drag race with some cheaper car I could only loose something. Same would go for god making a bet with the devil. Why when you have all the power would you not dismiss the challenge as being below you as all challenges to a all powerful being would be. If I could figure out that there are some challenges that are not worth answering right out of high school am I smarter than your god? I think so...

I do believe that since God was spirit only until the Birth of Jesus we were made in the likeness image of that spirit.
We have a spirit like God and a soul like His.
Before Jesus was born as a man he was The Word.
Now He is both Man and The Word.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

I do believe that since God was spirit only until the Birth of Jesus we were made in the likeness image of that spirit.

---

You may believe that, Fred. No problem.

Nothing personal, but from my point of view that view shows haughtiness and arrogance... a "perfect omniscient supra-natural omni-potent" spirit who needed a human body to push it acclaimed message to humanity...

If such an omni-potent entity would exist, it would not need a human format.
If such a supra-natural entity would exist, is humanity perhaps no more than an experiment ?
If such an omni-scient and omni-benevolent entity would exist, belief in such a deity would be irrelevant.
All that would count is how one lives his/her life.

:)

.

.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis;1462788]No scientific professional believes that "the human race" was a product of evolution from monkeys. The human race and monkeys share common ancestors. Just a couple more than we do with other animals. We even share ancestors with bananas and all other lifeforms.


Science is not versus religion.
Science is about explanation and objective supporting evidence (OSE).
Religion is about belief without any OSE.
And therefore never the two will meet.


"God" created man in his own image??
The important question here is more : who "created" "God"??

:)

.

Ah, yes I've bin waiting for that respons. I call that all other life form bit, "All are one, and one is all."

You sure like your OSE don't you?;) Fair enough.

Haha, good question, one I didn't ever expect. Here is another one, does it really even matter? Questions without answers... I suppose I'll be content on simply enjoying the world as it enjoys me. Peace be with you. And good question.

Nestorian,
I believe that no one or thing created God.
God is eternal.
Nothing but Him would exist except for His creation, therefore God is existence itself.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

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