This is a split off from the "Sexy Christians" thread.
I don´t want to derail this thread any further, but I am highly interested in continuing the conversation with cantata that we started there.
Whilst, if looking at things from my perspective and from within the realm of my existence, eternity is a non-concept.
On a sidenote (that may become important at some point, though) I´d like to point out that the „looking at the frames of a film simultaneously“ does not quite catch the issue. For the eternal being there is nothing but this one unchangeable picture. It´s the only thing it can see – eternally, completely statically.
My point is: From within the existence of a sentient eternal being absolutely nothing ever happens. There is only one DVD for it to look at, and this DVD does not tell a story to it, but is a still picture, with there not even being an option of „no DVD“ or „another DVD“.
And here is the key point (which is completely new to me – it came to me during this conversation, and I hope you help me get that sorted):
From the pov of an eternal being everything that exists is necessarily eternal. Nothing comes into being, nothing changes, nothing ceases to be. If the being is eternal, everything else must be eternal for it, too. From god´s pov the universe is just as eternal as god himself is.
And, even more strange, once I put myself in god´s shoes I must conclude that everthing else is just as eternal as I am.
For god, there is no difference between existence and memory of existence.
You actually were the one who brought this up when you said that once (speaking from our temporal perspective) we have been naked we are eternally naked for god.. Likewise, once anything has ever existed (again, speaking from our temporal perspective) it exists eternally for god.
For me and from within my realm and perspective, eternity is not a concept. Toying with it requires me to deny the validity of the paradigms of my existence.
Now, either I look at it from my perspective – in which nothing can be eternal, and even god is permanently changing, or I am trying to look at it from the perspective that denies the validity of the paradigms of my existence – in which case I necessarily end up concluding that along with god everything else must be eternal, too.
From god´s perspective, there´s god and the universe, and both are eternally and statically there. There is nothing to sustain. None is nor can be without the other.
The more parsimonous version, however, is that the universe is eternal, and that time and space are just our ways of perceiving it. The idea of a god turns out to be completely redundant.
I don´t want to derail this thread any further, but I am highly interested in continuing the conversation with cantata that we started there.
quatona said:
Why „only“? That would be god´s perspective, after all, and I keep hearing that god´s perspective is not only the most relevant one but the „true“ one.cantata said:
Whilst, if looking at things from my perspective and from within the realm of my existence, eternity is a non-concept.
On a sidenote (that may become important at some point, though) I´d like to point out that the „looking at the frames of a film simultaneously“ does not quite catch the issue. For the eternal being there is nothing but this one unchangeable picture. It´s the only thing it can see – eternally, completely statically.
quatona said:
Just for clarification: The „flawed“ part was not my opinion, but what I keep hearing from god believers.
My point is: From within the existence of a sentient eternal being absolutely nothing ever happens. There is only one DVD for it to look at, and this DVD does not tell a story to it, but is a still picture, with there not even being an option of „no DVD“ or „another DVD“.
And here is the key point (which is completely new to me – it came to me during this conversation, and I hope you help me get that sorted):
From the pov of an eternal being everything that exists is necessarily eternal. Nothing comes into being, nothing changes, nothing ceases to be. If the being is eternal, everything else must be eternal for it, too. From god´s pov the universe is just as eternal as god himself is.
I conclude that god is incapable of perceiving things my way (or even only fathoming or conceptualizing what it´s like to be temporal), whilst I am easily capable of fathoming and conceptualizing eternal, static existence. Strange, isn´t it?
And, even more strange, once I put myself in god´s shoes I must conclude that everthing else is just as eternal as I am.
And vice versa. Would you agree?
quatona said:
Well, that´s exactly my point.cantata said:
For god, there is no difference between existence and memory of existence.
You actually were the one who brought this up when you said that once (speaking from our temporal perspective) we have been naked we are eternally naked for god.. Likewise, once anything has ever existed (again, speaking from our temporal perspective) it exists eternally for god.
For me and from within my realm and perspective, eternity is not a concept. Toying with it requires me to deny the validity of the paradigms of my existence.
Now, either I look at it from my perspective – in which nothing can be eternal, and even god is permanently changing, or I am trying to look at it from the perspective that denies the validity of the paradigms of my existence – in which case I necessarily end up concluding that along with god everything else must be eternal, too.
To be honest, I find that destroying the last bit of comprehensibility - seeing that the irreconcilability of being eternal and acting jumps in my face immediately. (And, of course, I use „acting“ in the way I understand this word. I stubbornly refuse to use words in a way I don´t understand; or, at least,.if I did I wouldn´t pretend that my words were meant to communicate anything.
Ok, that´s common ground for us, then.
Uuhm, I mean I like you a lot and all, but I´m not sure that my love for you goes so far that I would allow you special pleading.
Well, in the same way as I can imagine the universe as sustaining god. Seeing that god´s and the universe´s eternity are interdependent...
In my understanding „sustaining“ is a temporal concept, in that it refers to duration. I have no idea what „sustain“ might possibly mean in the absence of time any more than I have an idea what „acting“ might mean in the absence of time.
From god´s perspective, there´s god and the universe, and both are eternally and statically there. There is nothing to sustain. None is nor can be without the other.
The more parsimonous version, however, is that the universe is eternal, and that time and space are just our ways of perceiving it. The idea of a god turns out to be completely redundant.