A critique of the misconceptions of eternality and God

[Master Pangloss]

I have not been a part of this forum for very long, but I find it alarming how often terms like "infinity", "eternal", "loop", etc. are thrown around. Moreover, I find it equally alarming how frequently the existence or nonexistence of God comes up. And both of these things usually coincide together.

First of all, I think it's a fairly well established fact that God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. The horse is dead people; we killed it centuries ago. I certainly hope any sain person would agree to this. Philosophy of religion encompasses much more than simply this issue, and I for one am done discussing these so called "proofs". Can I get a second on that? We can and should however discuss the values of believe or disbelief for the individual, and the philosophical consequences of various religious doctrines and belief in general. All of which would make for much more interesting and beneficial discussions.

Also, for some reason lately it has become commonplace to assume that "eternality" or "infinity" is something that exists seperate from and external to time, that it is an entity in and of itself. I tend to disagree and would like your comments on this. I agree with Unamuno in that contrary to what is popular today, eternity is not the state in which time no longer exists, but rather it is the state in which time never ends. As far as I know, historically the idea of infinity or eternity makes no claims to an infinite past of any sort, but only to an infinite future. But I reject the idea that these concepts are altogether unintellegible, and can therefore be used to elicit a God which is unintelligible; that is, a God which is unarguable. What are your thoughts on this?

In addition, can I get anyone to second a proposal to add Existentialism as a branch of philosophy open for discussion in this forum?

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Master Pangloss

In addition, can I get anyone to second a proposal to add Existentialism as a branch of philosophy open for discussion in this forum?

I'll second that. Now we just need someone to call a motion to move!

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Master Pangloss

The horse is dead people; we killed it centuries ago.

It's much easier to kick a dead horse than one that is alive.

Also, for some reason lately it has become commonplace to assume that "eternality" or "infinity" is something that exists seperate from and external to time, that it is an entity in and of itself.

Hmmm. I think the Judeo-Christian idea that God created the world ex nihilo implies that Heaven (eternity) exists outside of space-time. But I could be wrong. And unfortunately, Christianity have so strongly instilled their dogmatic views within the western culture, they are hard to escape.

And alas, I fall into the same camp. Any discussion that I would begin to have on eternity would ultimately fall back to the Christian idea of God.

As far as I know, historically the idea of infinity or eternity makes no claims to an infinite past of any sort, but only to an infinite future.

I think the thought of eternity not having a beginning can be attributed to Judiasm, Plato, Christianity, and probably some eastern religions that I am not aware of. When a God says that I AM, and that he is as he always was and always will be, that implies no beginning. Plato with his 'World of Ideas' that never change, and the fact that every 'soul' existed there before they existed in the flesh. Christianity, which adopted the views of the previous two mentioned. And on the Eastern front, I make no claim to valid knowledge on them, so someone can correct me if I am wrong.

But I reject the idea that these concepts are altogether unintellegible, and can therefore be used to elicit a God which is unintelligible; that is, a God which is unarguable. What are your thoughts on this?

Since our knowledge is so limited regarding both time and God, I think any discussion that tries to discover one through the other will have to inevitably accept certain premises that cannot be proven and have to be accepted dogmatically.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Master Pangloss

I think it's a fairly well established fact that God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. The horse is dead people; we killed it centuries ago. I certainly hope any sane person would agree to this. Philosophy of religion encompasses much more than simply this issue, and I for one am done discussing these so called "proofs".

God proofs are theology, they're not philosophy. But if we have a section on the Philosophy of Religion, it's going to be difficult (and not desirable in this enthusiast context) to exclude theology from that forum. Yes, I'm sick of god proofs (and god disproofs), but people want to talk about them and it's fine -- let them.

In addition, can I get anyone to second a proposal to add Existentialism as a branch of philosophy open for discussion in this forum?

Existentialism has certain metaphysical pretexts, but the existentialist authors were almost exclusively concerned with ethics and meaning. I'd love to have a more comprehensive area to discuss modern and postmodern ideas and philosophy, including but not limited to existentialism.

[Master Pangloss]

de Silentio - It is certainly true that in the Christian tradition they refer to their God as having an infinite past. I actually affirmed this in the last bit of my original post. But I don't think Plato ever claims that for "souls." Regardless, I was not referring to a God or souls. I was referring to the historical concept of "eternity" or "infinity" itself. You know what...this thread is going nowhere at light speed. Just think about it.

Aedes - I wouldn't say that theology and philosophy are entirely separate. If anything, I would say that theology is the slave or the prisoner of philosophy. Although, unfortunately it is very often a bothersome and taxing prisoner, but a prisoner nonetheless. But theology is subject to philosophy and must answer to it.

Actually existentialism encompesses virtually every branch of philosophy, but in fairness, it is highly unique. So, I can settle for something a bit broader. Think of it and I will be happy to get the conversation started.

[Didymos Thomas]

I wouldn't say that theology and philosophy are entirely separate. If anything, I would say that theology is the slave or the prisoner of philosophy. Although, unfortunately it is very often a bothersome and taxing prisoner, but a prisoner nonetheless. But theology is subject to philosophy and must answer to it.

I agree that they are not entirely separate - they influence each other. Theology is no slave to philosophy, they are the same study. The difference is that in the modern world we have secular philosophy. Which is fine, too.

[Zetetic11235]

There are uses of 'infinity', 'loop', ect, both proper and improper in their context. To be dismissive of the concept is not helpfull, rather we should discuss what eternality and infinity are!

Eternal is an inductive conclusion drawn from observation and the concept of time. We can envision an object movign at a slow pace relative to another 'forever', but in doing so, we only outline its rules of movement. When an object moves forever, we can equally well say it will not stop in relation to another object.

Consider this:Stillness is an illusion, you and I have never seen a perfectly still object. It would have a temperature of absolute zero so that microscopic movement would not be there, and simultainiously it must be stationary relative to every other object in the physical universe, which is impossible, you could simply say that the object is moving around the other objects no matter its orientation! Nonmovement is not real, only movement in different degrees relative your frame of reference! Nonmovement is a product of inductive reasoning and perceptual limitation!

It seems that such inductive conclusions are more akin to a syntax or rule set than any physical actuality. It may denote a physical actuality or create a mental approximation of one, but it is devorced from the thing which it denotes in an essential way: it is a rule set, not an object.

Considering infinity as a rule set, we can envision a physical object by a trick of perception which is infinite in size and density, even though such an object can never exist. In absolute terms such as those of infinity, nonmovement, nonexistence, we create rule sets by which meaning is approximated and a point is derived. Depending on the context of use, such terms are necessary and to the point or nonsensical.

There is no such physical object as a mathematically dense platonic solid, that is a perfectly smooth solid with no internal space between subatomic particles with everysingle particle totally solid and singular in every property, but we can write rules by which such things can be physically approximated! No wheels are perfectly round, but the concept of roundness gives us a pointer by which we can see the way to improving our existing technology!

By considering certain words to be definite/verifiable, and some to be syntactic/rule-sets, you avoid the problem of nonexistent absolutes.

[Master Pangloss]

[quote=Zetetic11235;20018]There are uses of 'infinity', 'loop', ect, both proper and improper in their context. To be dismissive of the concept is not helpfull, rather we should discuss what eternality and infinity are!quote]

Zetetic - You present me with two options, both of which are very troubling. Either, I have not made myself clear or you have not understood me. I'm not sure which is worse. You have merely restated what I have already said. I never so much as implied the dismissal of the concept of infinity. I was strictly speaking about the concepts themselves, which again, you affirm we should be doing anyway. So I think we are in complete agreement on this.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Master Pangloss

de Silentio - It is certainly true that in the Christian tradition they refer to their God as having an infinite past. I actually affirmed this in the last bit of my original post. But I don't think Plato ever claims that for "souls." Regardless, I was not referring to a God or souls. I was referring to the historical concept of "eternity" or "infinity" itself.

You made the statement that historically eternity makes no claim to an infinite past. I disagree on the grounds that I laid out in my post. I know you were not referring exclusively to God or Souls, but when history speaks of eternity, it refers to God. As I said, Christianity was a major influence on the ideas of history, and thus Christian ideas influenced the concept of eternity throughout history.

Regarding Plato, his 'World of Ideas' contains things that are in a constant state of being, never changing. I always presumed that Plato implied no beginning with his World of Ideas. However, I have found conflicting evidence online, both in support of and against my presumption.

If Plato doesn't talk of eternity having no beginning, Aristotle apparently does, and he no doubt played an influencial role in the history of the concept of eternity. I do not know his works directly, but I read numerous times that he claimed that his Unmoved Mover has no beginning or end. (however, I could be wrong, it was very brief research)

You know what...this thread is going nowhere at light speed.

You repeatedly requested peoples thoughts on the subject. Next time maybe you should be a little more clear on what type of thoughts you are looking for.

Just think about it.

Writing is thinking.

[Zetetic11235]

Master pangloss, it was pretty late when I read your post and I glanced it over more or less. I think I must have missed missed the last few lines.

I gave a possible framework by which the types of words you were speaking of in your first and last paragraph could be ordered and understood. We should continue this, developing a framework for the use of these words is quite important for understanding how to apply them and when it is appropriate to do so.

You are quite right about the number of god proofs in this forum, but I don't see how this is a problem you should be concerned with. They choose to remain ignorant when so many threads and posts are availabe to them. Don't exacerbate the problem by posting in these threads if you don't find the discussion worthy.