What is the truth?

[Freodin]

I think I addressed this in a previous post but "reality" without truth is not reality.

This doesn't address or answer my question.

I know you disagreed Freodin, I believe you accepted as a standard definition of Reality in a previous post or at least had no problem with it:

• "the quality of state or being actual or true in objective existence."

Definitions, definitions.
As "actual" is already defined as "existing in reality", I did read that as "being actual" or "true in objective existence".

And, as you might have noticed, perhaps, marginally... I asked you repeatedly to define what "truth" means! This is, after all, the question this thread is based on.

Truth has always existed, for God is True, therefore reality has always existed. Hypothetically if God, Who calls Himself "I Am" as well as "the Truth", the Way and Life, was not true but false then reality would not exist and we would not be having this conversation. With regard to the component of state in the definition, I would add that we must consider is from "the timeless eternal state of His Being". God always was, God is, and God always will be both True and existent; which of course being a atheist you do not believe. Notice He does have a state of Being, "I Am", with no conditionals and since, God is necessarily true He objectively exists. There is no one like God and He is not subject to anything including time.

Is that meant to be a definition? So God is true, and God is truth, and truth is true... which means that God is God.

Let's see. If God was "false"... what would that mean? Would it mean that when God say "I am"... he is wrong, and is not?

It is a known fact that time came into existence with the physical universe and cannot be separated out from the fabric of space, hence we coined the term of inseparability "space-time". The universe had a beginning that was truly real and the overwhelming majority of physicists share that viewpoint. So, with respect to the reality of creation, which you would simply call the universe, there was a point whereupon it did not exist. It is a true claim that: It did not exist. It was not real. After creation, the big bang if you like, it became real being derived from truth of God who made it the universe a reality. However, the universe is a reality dependent both on God and upon the fabric we call space time. Since you do not believe in God we can still both agree that the reality of the universe (e.g. you and I do exist and are having this conversation) is dependent on time (simplifying for the time being) which has a beginning and an end. Before the beginning the the universe was NOT a reality - with time it IS a reality - when time ends it will CEASE to be a reality. So here we have a point where reality is finite as you requested, unless of course you do not believe in the reality of the universe and this conversation really isn't taking place

Before the beginning? Before time? How can you use a temporal term to describe something without time?
But ok. Let's just call it a "point" (even though that would still be a 'point in time'... whatever).
So there is a "point" where the universe did not "exist", and there will be a "point" when it ceases to exist.
And it was God who "made" the universe a reality. That would mean that there also was a "point" where God had not made the universe, as well as a "point" where God has had made the universe. Which would mean that there are, in your terms, at least two different realities for God. A God who changes. A God who is subject to, well, we would have to call that "time", wouldn't we? Without time, there is no change.

See how difficult it is to even consider these concepts from a temporal human point of view, using the language we developed to describe our temporal existence?

Just because other people have come to a standard definition that I support doesn't mean it is an about turn - that is completely out of left field.

See, I simply do not know what to make of you.
I asked you define the terms in question: "reality" and "truth". When you finally presented a definition for at least the first half of this request: "reality", I pointed out that this definition was inconsistent with your position.
So you declared that this wasn't your definition, only the "standard" defintion, which you still "support". (Now what does that mean? That you use it? That you agree with it, but still use a different one? I don't know... and you won't tell me!)

Every time you mention "reality" or "truth" or "is true" or "is false" or "is real", I am left wondering: "Now what does that mean for him?"
I can't but repeat my request that you tell me how you define those terms.

I believe I did answer all your questions yet y

ou did not supply any empirical evidence as why a supernova is an simply an abstraction of a star and not a separate existent entity.

I wouldn't know how to provide "empirical" evidence for something that is not empirical.
And I never said that "a supernove is simply an abstraction of a star".
What I did say was: "the sun is something that encompasses gas cloud, star, super-nova...", meaning that all these terms, "gas cloud, start, super-nova, sun..." are the abstractions of the reality of what these currently giant glowing ball of hot gas you see in the sky is.

But instead of "empirical" evidence, let me use some other examples. One that might be familiar to you.

So we have an object. A "seperate existent entity". Then (temporal) something happens to it. And now (temporal) it is no longer "seperate existent entity", but a "different existent entity". An entity that is in form, function, attributes and capabilities so much removed from the first entity that you would say the first does no longer exist and the new one now exists. You call the first one "star" and the second one "super-nova".

Oops, sorry, wrong example. You call the first one "piano" and the second one "merely broken parts". Oops, sorry, wrong again: you don't call it that. You somehow insist that this new entity is somehow still the piano.
Another example from the same exchange: you die. You decompose. Instead of a living breating, conscious entity that is called "you", there now only is a heap of bones and rotting flesh. Old entity ceased, new entity exists? No way! It is still "you", only changed by God!

Instead all you did was deflect that the Sun is not destined to supernova. Yes, I also knew that before writing but it is an analogy I used because SPF used the sun so I used it as an example as well. I say "perhaps many years from now it might be possible to say." So, yes I am aware the predictive models state that the Sun is an unlikey prospect to supernova and most "probably" will expand into a red giant. It appears disingenuous that you morphed that the example because many stars indeed have already undergone supernova and many more will so the example isn't invalidated because I used the star called the Sun and your literal interpretation missed the point.

So a parenthetical remark is now a "deflection". I apologize... I simply thought you'd care for the truth.
Ok. So no white dwarfs or red giants... super-novae. Which doesn't change my point: the reality hasn't changed. Only the category that we humans put parts of it into. And "categories" are abstractions.

You not explaining the existence of a Star and a Supernova as a single abstraction appears to be disingenuous at best or intellectually dishonest at worst, as long as you are so willing to point out other peoples flaws while ignoring your own.

• Show me some empirical evidence of why they are abstractions of one another.

As I said, no "empirical" evidence for something that isn't empirical. But you want different examples?
Here we have a "child", there we have an "adult". Once, you had been a "child". Now you are an "adult". Both terms are an abstraction of the entity you call "you". If these terms are not abstractions, but concrete entities, then there would have to be a "point" where the "child" ceased to exist and the "adult" sprang into existence. Are you not still the same "you"?
And who is this "you"? You are constantly adding and subtracting matter to "you". (About) every seven years all the atoms in your body have been exchanged. Perhaps you are now part piano. Your mind is constantly changing, your thoughts, your memory, your feelings.
After you have read this post... had the entity-which-had-not-yet-read-this-post ceased to exist, and been replaced with a "new" entity?
All of these are abstrations.

I wonder why you're not reading the posts before you make such outlandish statements.
In two separate posts I told you what my definition was:

• I stand behind my original premise, which is not only mine but has an historical precedent. Plato reasoned the same argument when he stated, paraphrased, that -God is Truth and the truth divine. So that hypothesis, which I share, is indeed older than my assertion and older than Christianity itself. #353
• To which you replied:
  
  Interesting. My hypothesis is also quite old, based on Plato, Aristoteles and some more modern folk like Thomas Aquinas. It is commonly known in Philosophy as the "Correspondence Theory of Truth". It does also take some elements from the Coherence Theory of Truth.​
• I also said in a post that Plato’s known ideas on truth reflect the view that he held that absolute truth existed. While also claiming he did not know whether or not people would ever be able to discern absolute truth he does imply that God must be a first cause and a self-moved mover otherwise there will be an infinite regression with respect to the causes of causes.
  • As I stated Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; in the flesh incarnate. Being the Word of God from eternity The Gospel of John tells us He was from the eternal not just within the domain of time.
  • In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend - John 1:1-5
• God therefore is the ultimate Truth, which defines all truth - in fact all truth is God's truth - He is the source of all Truth, as well as love and all that exists. According to His goodness He has given us free will to choose. We have the choice to turn to the truth or not
  • Deuteronomy 30:15 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil
  • Deuteronomy 30:19-20 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days

I have people complaining about long posts but keep finding I need to reiterate things multiple times.

I hear what you say. I don't know what you mean. I am asking for you to explain what you mean, not repeat what you say. It seems you have troubles understanding the difference.

Let's take just a snipped from this last paragraph:
"God therefore is the ultimate Truth, which defines all truth - in fact all truth is God's truth - He is the source of all Truth, as well as love and all that exists. According to His goodness He has given us free will to choose. We have the choice to turn to the truth or not."

God is Truth (capital T... how is that different from lowercase t-truth?), which defines truth, which is "God". Lowercase-truth belongs to God. (what does that mean?) He is the source of "Truth" (capital T again), which is God, so God is the source of God.

See, no, I do not understand what you are talking about. Please explain it... don't just repeat it. Be a good messenger!

Oops!
Actually you are wrong it is destined to be a Red Giant based on our best predictions.
Should I now throw out your inconsistent usage of "reality" here. This is the kind of silliness you force me to put up with that poisons the well of just having a natural conversation in discussing things logically. We were in the context of star and supernova my friend and I believe you knew exactly what I meant in order to discuss the point.

• Timeline of the far future - Wikipedia

Yes, oops. Actually, I am right... just incomplete. The Sun - Life Phases
I simply was pointing out a small flaw in your analogy. A sidenote, a remark in brackets.
You chose to spend two whole paragraphs on ranting that I was "deflecting" and "poisoning the well" with this remark... well, if that is what is important for you...

The state of a Star (I'll have to be explicit going forward in my examples) say 1987 before and after it underwent supernova is far more than our perception of it. Think of what you are saying. My perception or your perception isn't responsible for the change from being a star to it not existing as a star any longer. In fact it's residue may become planets for other stars, etc, etc. but that star is gone, gone, gone!

And the piano is gone, gone, gone. Isn't it?
But you are right, our perception isn't responsible for the change of the star. But our perception is responsible of the term we use to describe it.

It no longer exists as a star in reality and to say it does is false. Let's not play games.

It no longer exists as a piano in reality... and to say that it still does because God can put it together again is false. Isn't it?
But let's not play games. Note the important term you used in your statement: "no longer". A temporal expression. Reality isn't temporal.
The "star" in "the present" is gone. It has changed. The "star" in "the past" exists. Both are real. Both are part of reality.
The alternative would be to say that the past isn't real. Which would mean it doesn't exist. The same would apply to the future: there is no super-nova right now... it doesn't exist... it is not real. Thus the future is not real and doesn't exist.

So now that we have examples of things that do not exist, but according to your position would still have to be "true"... please start to explain what you mean with the term "true":

Like I said disingenuous as I know you understood the point Freodin.

Again, you telling me my own position... and calling me disingenious for not following your rules as to what I am supposed to say. What was that about "poisoning the well"?

Okay you're not special - perhaps that is too lofty an expression. Let's just say you don't fit into the same category as most atheists I have had discussions with or the experiences other Christian apologist would say are within 3 sigmas of the bell curve.

I do not know "most atheists" that you talked to, or the way that you talked to them. If you talked to them in the same way that you talk to me, I stand to my previous statement that you didn't ask the right questions or no questions at all.
You know, telling others what they believe or understand is usually not a good way to find out what they believe or understand.

No Freodin, your question is not based in reality. If God doesn't hate atheists but calls them to Himself, and I have seen many former atheists transformed into Christians, then I am also called to love atheists too. This is the Gospel Age, the age of mercy towards all. I believe God will judge whenever He sees fit to and until then I am to pray for you as much as I do for Muslims, Buddhists and Hindu's that I work with almost every day. I love them too although they re usually much easier to talk to about Jesus than unchurched Americans, agnostics and atheists. My job, as I have stated before, is to bring the message of God's love toward all - not convince them. I rely on God, whom I believe exists in each one of us, to do that but know God does not coerce one towards belief - therefore I do not either. I am analogous to an RNA messenger when it comes to cell creation in the Biblical sense.

Look at that. A full paragraph explaining how my question is not based in reality... while totally misunderstanding the question.
Hint: the point was not "does God hate atheists" or "do Christians hate atheists"... but "do atheists hate God", referring back to your previous statement of "Is there something you have against a relationship with Jesus, something He said, did, etc.".

Yes, and I go to different countries and work with peoples from many nations here and abroad because the love of God compels my heart to bring the message that the greatest hope of mankind is the Great commission. Romans 8:31-36
If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written:
“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I asked you to do this before, I think, and I didn't have much success. I still will do it again.
Just for a second, consider a worldview different from your own. Consider what it looks like from a different perspective. You have told me before that you had been an "agnostic", and while I fear that you use these term different from me and most atheists, it might give you a different perspective. (Hint: I am an atheist AND an agnostic. As are most atheists.)

So try to understand what this last exchange looks from my perspective.

You: Why don't you just try it out? What do you have to lose? Just try it once, you will see that it works!
Me: I have been at this for a long, long time. Don't you think I have heard this before, tried it, and found that it didn't work?
You: Whatever! I will keep telling you the same stuff that didn't work before. And I am right to do that and nothing can convince me otherwise, because God is with me. I don't have to consider what you say. God's word is the only thing that counts for me, not something that an atheist might say.

Do you think that you are being a good messenger, if this is how your message is received?

For the record I am not a "fundamentalist" Christian and believe every Christian is necessarily "born again" - the spiritual rebirth of the Holy Spirit given to us by God. If they have not been born again alas they are not truly a Christian. They may think they are intellectually but they are not in their heart truly His yet.
It also has not been my experience that those who truly ask God to reveal Himself in their lives that He does not answer in a way we can understand. If one truly knows God there is no denying His existence. It's like the story of the older couple who were on a long road trip driving when the wife said, "You know, I remember the days when we sat so close and you had your arm around me wherever we drove." The husband looked away from the road at his wife and said, "Well honey, I'm not the one who has moved from my position".

And here we have the next Christian standard excuse when things go wrong: unbelievers didn't "truly" ask. Christians who deconverted were not "true" Christians.

You know what is really strange? When I ask Christians, who like you make this argument, about how I am not "sincere" and how to "truly" ask God... I never get an answer.

No, like I said God arbitrates for the human heart and He does that differently for those who diligently seek Him than for those who do not. He gives grace to the humbles but resists the proud. If they have heard the message and rejected Christ then I will just pray for them. Although it makes me sad in the light of eternity I can do little but put them in God's hands by my prayers.

That's the fatal flaw in your whole position. You see yourself as a messenger, but you do not see that it is your messaging, not your message, that is the cause for rejection. And you don't care.

Of course I forgive you Freodin! I myself am a sinner that God has forgiven, so who am I not to forgive you or anyone else for that matter. The woman at the well initially though Jesus had nothing to offer her either.
John 4:10
John 4 for the rest of the story

...of the story. Exactly. Perhaps I will go out and kiss some frogs, too.

 

[John 1720]

This doesn't address or answer my question. And, as you might have noticed, perhaps, marginally... I asked you repeatedly to define what "truth" means! This is, after all, the question this thread is based on.

And as put forth in prima facie evidence I repeatedly answered you. Your non acceptance of my answer, just like the standard definition of reality doesn't mean my definitions are not true. They may not be according to your definition of reality - different term - but they are objective.

Is that meant to be a definition? So God is true, and God is truth, and truth is true... which means that God is God.
Let's see. If God was "false"... what would that mean? Would it mean that when God say "I am"... he is wrong, and is not?

No, it means the one we call God or the one you deny is the One whom I call the ultimate Truth. I already postulated in a previous post that if God was not true there is no reality.

Before the beginning? Before time? How can you use a temporal term to describe something without time?

Time is a physical property and not a spiritual property. Therefore time is a finite property and not an infinite property. Everything is this universe perishes in the physical sense. God, however, claims to us that He was before the physical universe (I am speaking finitely because my mind is subject to the reality of time in which I exist and language fails to express it) Like the properties of infinite series Series (mathematics) - Wikipedia you can not truly represent infinity with finite math but can make inferences on the nature of series that either converge or go off into the infinite like L'Hopital's rule, etc. That's about all we can wrap our heads around using our abstract representation. As far as time and space being inseparable, surely you can conceive of what scientists call the big bang was indeed the beginning of physical reality. Whatever preceded physical reality has no time component associated with it nor any physical component for that matter (no pun intended). However, we are on a journey to the everlasting, which is captured in the Lord's prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"; heaven representing the eternal state of God's domain. Somehow God's plan for Creation will someday match up. Although I cannot conceive how that will occur I'm convinced by God's track record. From the earliest records, Irenaeus through Augustine, Christians have maintained that time began with what the secularists unfortunately call the Big Bang, but which we call Creation. Late 20th century physics finally confirmed the Christian aspect of time to be true (see Paul Davies). So from the Eternal and from the Infinite and Everlasting God then He created the temporal reality in which you and I now live.

But ok. Let's just call it a "point" (even though that would still be a 'point in time'... whatever).
So there is a "point" where the universe did not "exist", and there will be a "point" when it ceases to exist.
And it was God who "made" the universe a reality. That would mean that there also was a "point" where God had not made the universe, as well as a "point" where God has had made the universe. Which would mean that there are, in your terms, at least two different realities for God. A God who changes. A God who is subject to, well, we would have to call that "time", wouldn't we? Without time, there is no change.

If I build a house or father a child does that change my reality? God creating a temporal reality does not necessitate or mean that His Reality must changes. As the Bible states He is unchanging. Creating a new existence from nothing does not mean He has to change it is an act of His eternal Will not a change in Who He is but rather a reflection of His Goodness spread across time and within the perceptions of His creation. God then is infinitely empowered (omnipotent) to create in truth, realities that over time reflect His Truth.

See how difficult it is to even consider these concepts from a temporal human point of view, using the language we developed to describe our temporal existence?

Yes, I realize how difficult to use temporal human constructs to represent the infinite and realize that must be even harder for atheists who do not beiieve in an infinite Being and do believe that this world is just random chaos.

See, I simply do not know what to make of you.
[/QUOTE[
Why try to make me something that fits into a box? You did not make me God did. Why define me if you cannot define God? I don't profess to understand everything about God but I do believe in His Love and have experienced it. Even in this world we cannot put love in a box. Volumes have been written about love and volumes have been written about God. Both are invisible to the 5 senses but we have been trying to express something that goes beyond the finite. I have been done with letting my own willfulness define me, and though from time to time it creeps back in, I have set my vector to let God define who I am in every aspect of my life.

I asked you define the terms in question: "reality" and "truth". When you finally presented a definition for at least the first half of this request: "reality", I pointed out that this definition was inconsistent with your position.
So you declared that this wasn't your definition, only the "standard" defintion, which you still "support". (Now what does that mean? That you use it? That you agree with it, but still use a different one? I don't know... and you won't tell me!)
Every time you mention "reality" or "truth" or "is true" or "is false" or "is real", I am left wondering: "Now what does that mean for him?"
I can't but repeat my request that you tell me how you define those terms.
I wouldn't know how to provide "empirical" evidence for something that is not empirical.

The quality of state or being actual or true in objective existence. It is independent of thought or language; the state of one's existence.
I believe I did speak about the components of Quality of State as being


[/QUOTE="Freodin"]
And I never said that "a supernove is simply an abstraction of a star".
What I did say was: "the sun is something that encompasses gas cloud, star, super-nova...", meaning that all these terms, "gas cloud, start, super-nova, sun..." are the abstractions of the reality of what these currently giant glowing ball of hot gas you see in the sky is.

Talk about a giant ball of hot gas Pretty much all the above is patently false - not real including the accusations. Objects are either real or they are not/ They are either created or do not exist. You are a collection of atoms and molecules that doesn't mean because there are free floating atoms and molecules around the person Freodin exists. You are God's amazing proof in the integration of so much that it took to create Freodin.

But instead of "empirical" evidence, let me use some other examples. One that might be familiar to you.
So we have an object. A "seperate existent entity". Then (temporal) something happens to it. And now (temporal) it is no longer "seperate existent entity", but a "different existent entity". An entity that is in form, function, attributes and capabilities so much removed from the first entity that you would say the first does no longer exist and the new one now exists. You call the first one "star" and the second one "super-nova".

Obviously you are taking a whole lot of abstract liberty. A Supernova is no more a star then a star is a supernova. Glad you never taught astronomy. They are separate objects. You are not your parents and grandparents or the ones buried in the church yards of history but are considered unique by God. I can't believe this is the best you are capable of.

Oops, sorry, wrong example. You call the first one "piano" and the second one "merely broken parts". Oops, sorry, wrong again: you don't call it that. You somehow insist that this new entity is somehow still the piano.

Just bad science on your part.
I used your example of a piano as a poor example of transformation, for you had said:

Piano. Sledgehammer. Energy cannot be destroyed, it only transforms. The piano is transformed into a form that can no longer be played as a piano. Does that clarify the position of "atheists"?

That certainly is not transformation. Yes, I would agree with you that the supernova could be thought of as a set of broken parts from a star. AND, I have no doubt that if GOD so intended He could rebuild it into the very same star. Alas, for your ingenious example, that is NOT what we see in our historical records of supernovas. What Scientists see is that the former materials are scattered across the fabric of space and are "transformed" into other objects that are NOT the original star. Perhaps you would like to say these objects that did not formerly exist in the time-frame when the star existed are one and the same supernova be damned but to me that is a schizophrenic view of the universe as we know it. Sorry.

• Another example from the same exchange: you die. You decompose. Instead of a living breating, conscious entity that is called "you", there now only is a heap of bones and rotting flesh. Old entity ceased, new entity exists? No way! It is still "you", only changed by God!

Well God is not the one who corrupted us as we all originally chose the path of sin and corruption ourselves. If we cannot see God's goodness in the world I still think most people can see evil every day on the 5 O'clock news. All of us are physically subject to death because all of humanity is corrupted, with the exception, of Christ Jesus. He died for us but is now resurrected and glorified, seated at the right hand of the Father. By grace through faith we have His Spirit living within our hearts and because the spirit works in us we too shall rise by the same power that rose Jesus from the grave. My Spirit is alive in Christ I am not there among the dead bones. However, not all shall die when He comes to gather His faithful as some will be transformed to our new being without dying. Those who are dead, or rather asleep in Christ, shall be raised immortal after the image of the Son of Man. Some might consider this new man to be in the evolutionary process but it doesn't happen by random selection but rather it is ordained by God. Our present state of existence will be forever changed by the incorruptible image of Christ who shall cloth us in His glory.

So a parenthetical remark is now a "deflection". I apologize... I simply thought you'd care for the truth.

Already knew the truth or rather the predictive truth many decades ago but thanks for the state of the sun post fusion process.

Ok. So no white dwarfs or red giants... super-novae. Which doesn't change my point: the reality hasn't changed. Only the category that we humans put parts of it into. And "categories" are abstractions.

As I said, no "empirical" evidence for something that isn't empirical. But you want different examples?
Here we have a "child", there we have an "adult". Once, you had been a "child". Now you are an "adult". Both terms are an abstraction of the entity you call "you". If these terms are not abstractions, but concrete entities, then there would have to be a "point" where the "child" ceased to exist and the "adult" sprang into existence. Are you not still the same "you"?
And who is this "you"? You are constantly adding and subtracting matter to "you". (About) every seven years all the atoms in your body have been exchanged. Perhaps you are now part piano. Your mind is constantly changing, your thoughts, your memory, your feelings.
After you have read this post... had the entity-which-had-not-yet-read-this-post ceased to exist, and been replaced with a "new" entity?
All of these are abstrations.

All the cells in your body have been regenerated according to how you were coded in your DNA by way of messenger RNA. You are more than your cells Freodin for you are a cell generating machine that has been wonderfully and fearfully made and integrated into a complex human being - at least as long as you have breath and those cell keep regenerating themselves according to your TRUE DNA pattern. Funny how that word TRUTH keeps popping up, eh?

I hear what you say. I don't know what you mean. I am asking for you to explain what you mean, not repeat what you say. It seems you have troubles understanding the difference.

Yeah, you know it is pretty funny that the companies I worked for granted me patents for logic design and paid me so much money over the last several decades for computer design, problem solving and technical invention when I am so illogical and incomprehensible to you. O well at least I got to laugh all the way to the bank but thanks for the condescension I probably need the humility

Let's take just a snipped from this last paragraph:
"God therefore is the ultimate Truth, which defines all truth - in fact all truth is God's truth - He is the source of all Truth, as well as love and all that exists. According to His goodness He has given us free will to choose. We have the choice to turn to the truth or not."

God is Truth (capital T... how is that different from lowercase t-truth?), which defines truth, which is "God". Lowercase-truth belongs to God. (what does that mean?) He is the source of "Truth" (capital T again), which is God, so God is the source of God.

See, no, I do not understand what you are talking about. Please explain it... don't just repeat it. Be a good messenger!

I would refer you back to Plato who inferred His understanding of God as being the source and primary cause and mover of all, else we are left with infinite recursion. As for lowercase truth all these are derivatives of whom we know to be the Truth, God Himself. As Romans 1 states all things point to God, even the heavens declare His Glory. Little truths and big truths all point to God.

• For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse ...
• Creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

Do I expect you to believe God is indeed the ultimate Truth and all existent truths point to Him? No, of course not. You do not believe God exists so it follows you would not understand the point. However your lack of understanding as Christian Truth does not change my claim as the plausible answer. Probably one of the best logicians of the twentieth century Godel claimed necesary and contingent truths pointed to God. I'm not saying his ontological proof are unquestionable but certainly it is logical for a person to believe God exists and He is the ultimate Truths that all other truths point to Him. I happen to see that an understanding of the heavens points to God as every day the universe expands something that did not exist in space/time is being created out of nothing - yet we have the old philosophical adage creatio ex nihlo, out of nothing nothing comes. (0 * 0 = 0 in fact 0 times anything = 0 in any base. How do you explain what was nothing now is? What did that or rather Who? So rather creatio ex deo is the more rational explanation and always will be for creation is out of the Being of God who made creation real in the first place.

Yes, oops. Actually, I am right... just incomplete. The Sun - Life Phases
I simply was pointing out a small flaw in your analogy. A sidenote, a remark in brackets.
You chose to spend two whole paragraphs on ranting that I was "deflecting" and "poisoning the well" with this remark... well, if that is what is important for you...

I stand corrected - Mea culpa and my apologies to you Freodin! I watch the science channel all the time and knew it would become a Red Giant but had not heard when the fusion process is over it is predicted to become a white dwarf. So point taken, even though it is off topic.

• After Hydrogen fusion in its core has diminished to the point at which it is no longer in hydrostatic equilibrium, the core of the Sun will experience a marked increase in density and temperature while its outer layers expand to eventually become a RED GIANT. It is calculated that the Sun will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbits of Mercury, Venus and probably Earth.

And the piano is gone, gone, gone. Isn't it?
But you are right, our perception isn't responsible for the change of the star. But our perception is responsible of the term we use to describe it.
It no longer exists as a piano in reality... and to say that it still does because God can put it together again is false. Isn't it?
But let's not play games. Note the important term you used in your statement: "no longer". A temporal expression. Reality isn't temporal.
The "star" in "the present" is gone. It has changed. The "star" in "the past" exists. Both are real. Both are part of reality.
The alternative would be to say that the past isn't real. Which would mean it doesn't exist. The same would apply to the future: there is no super-nova right now... it doesn't exist... it is not real. Thus the future is not real and doesn't exist.

I suppose it depends on your perspective and if a finite universe is your reality. With respect to God there is nothing broken that cannot be fixed nor is there anything which has ceased to exist in state which cannot be transformed or renewed. So from God's perspective, which is outside of time, I would tend to agree. However I am surprised you are an atheist and could see that. However, as previously stated, the universe has a beginning and an end, as well as having purpose in the Will of God who formed it out of nothing. It was not a reality until it was created and it will cease to exist in state but will be transformed to something outside of time and subject to time. Time will cease to exist.
No it not necessary for me to refute the past as something that was true but it would be a lie to say the past is present real within the constructs of the known universe; which I believe most atheists would state is the only thing that is real.

So now that we have examples of things that do not exist, but according to your position would still have to be "true"... please start to explain what you mean with the term "true":

There are more things in heaven and earth, Freodin, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Since neither you and I are God but have our being in time then that is the present reality of our existence. Your ancestors are probably buried in the church graveyard; to say you expect them for supper tomorrow would be insanity. We live in the present and things are true or false according to proper perspective within the universal construct. Sure if we have faith we believe with God that all things are possible but the finite state and the infinite state are very different realities and no one has prove yet that they are one and the same no matter how many abstractions and twists and turns it still smells like wishful thinking to erase Truth from the equation. Some time ago the renowned philosopher Nebuchadnezzar - sorry wrong time period, Frederick Nietzche who was blessed with an astounding mind devolved into insanity but before He did made the claim that "God was dead". While it may be that he was once alive no one in their right mind would say he lives today. In truth the reality is Fred is dead and God is very much alive!

So based on the above you may want to reconsider your position based on the reality of the universe in trying to abstract everything to fit your model.

Again, you telling me my own position... and calling me disingenious for not following your rules as to what I am supposed to say. What was that about "poisoning the well"?
I do not know "most atheists" that you talked to, or the way that you talked to them. If you talked to them in the same way that you talk to me, I stand to my previous statement that you didn't ask the right questions or no questions at all.
You know, telling others what they believe or understand is usually not a good way to find out what they believe or understand.

I don't believe I was labeling you as disingenuous but rather called some of the things you said disingenuous. I will look back just to be sure. I rather like some of the discussion points you made Freodin; so if you took it that way I apologize as that was not my intent. Overall I think I have learned quite a bit about your brand of atheism even though I am still of the opinion it is not the conventional type. I have had good reasoned discussion with atheists despite your suspicions. God has taught me many things through many people whether theists or non-theists, so I do appreciate your willing attempt to have a rational discussion with me, even if at times I will strongly disagree, and you will strongly disagree with me. I truly believe you are a very intelligent person and I truly appreciate the time you have put into each of your posts.

Look at that. A full paragraph explaining how my question is not based in reality... while totally misunderstanding the question.
Hint: the point was not "does God hate atheists" or "do Christians hate atheists"... but "do atheists hate God", referring back to your previous statement of "Is there something you have against a relationship with Jesus, something He said, did, etc.".

I asked you to do this before, I think, and I didn't have much success. I still will do it again.
Just for a second, consider a worldview different from your own. Consider what it looks like from a different perspective. You have told me before that you had been an "agnostic", and while I fear that you use these term different from me and most atheists, it might give you a different perspective. (Hint: I am an atheist AND an agnostic. As are most atheists.)

So try to understand what this last exchange looks from my perspective.

You: Why don't you just try it out? What do you have to lose? Just try it once, you will see that it works!
Me: I have been at this for a long, long time. Don't you think I have heard this before, tried it, and found that it didn't work?
You: Whatever! I will keep telling you the same stuff that didn't work before. And I am right to do that and nothing can convince me otherwise, because God is with me. I don't have to consider what you say. God's word is the only thing that counts for me, not something that an atheist might say.

Do you think that you are being a good messenger, if this is how your message is received?

And here we have the next Christian standard excuse when things go wrong: unbelievers didn't "truly" ask. Christians who deconverted were not "true" Christians.

You know what is really strange? When I ask Christians, who like you make this argument, about how I am not "sincere" and how to "truly" ask God... I never get an answer.

That's the fatal flaw in your whole position. You see yourself as a messenger, but you do not see that it is your messaging, not your message, that is the cause for rejection. And you don't care.

...of the story. Exactly. Perhaps I will go out and kiss some frogs, too.

It sounds a bit like you have a bit of an axe to grind with Christians because I didn't say half of that. We were speaking of Reality and it's connection to truth.All I was saying is according to the context of that main thrust and there was a bit of philosophy and theology thrown into the mix. I believe God is in every person. Agnostic literally means without knowledge and atheism means against theism. I don't know how you reconcile the two. I was ambivalent towards God when I was in the military. I had head knowledge about God but did not have a relationship. He was light years removed from my heart. The Gospel also offended me. I had friends that had my back and I hsd theirs. I understood the brotherhood part but I didn't get how Jesus not only had my back but also really did lay down His life for me. So for the most part we have been having a philosophical discussion and wrestling with theology and not a Gospel messaging of the "Good News" discussion. Since my arguments are from a Christian perspective some of what I said may be theologically acute but theology, as I stated, saves no one. It is fine to reject me if I have not represented my Lord and I will take what you have said in critique and sincerely pray about it. When I am out in the Field I do not get into philosophical debates but avoid them. There's just too much baggage there. I do love people wherever they are with respect to belief or unbelief. and while I have done many beneficial services in the Name of Christ I am aware I am an imperfect messenger. Still I love Christ, and people and how He has been changing me every day as I grow embryonically into what He made me for. I would die for Him and for the people He has put in my life. I have met so many people I thought I was there to bless that instead wound up blessing me and teaching me more about the Spirit of God then I ever experienced. The things I have learned through the love of others, that God has shown me through them, have just drawn me to give more of myself to Christ;s commission. I'm sorry if I have been a poor example to you Freodin. Ministering from the head and not the heart always seems to be a poor standard and I believe we are both culpable in that enterprise.
Have a good night!
And I know this will not mean anything to you but
May the Lord bless you, Patrick

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Regarding the credibility and reliability of writings, scholars and historians are supposed to follow the historical method, which is well established. I have read the works of a variety of different NT historians and when you understand the historical method, it isn't hard to distinguish who is using the method properly.

Nothing wrong with believing in the NT on faith, but when it comes to historical credibility, it falls short in meeting the standard. This is why, many NT historians will state; the NT is much more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history.

I agree, but I would take your statement further and say that the Bible as a whole is more a work of prophetic utterance (or theology, if you prefer) and was meant to be so rather than a straightforward work of history as many claim for it today. In fact, to see it as revelation rather than history would also go some way in better agreement with the epistemological indices that we find in the Bible among the writings.

 

[SPF]

Time will cease to exist.

I missed that passage in the Bible =D. How do you define time? Is time a thing?

 

[John 1720]

I missed that passage in the Bible =D. How do you define time? Is time a thing?

Hi SPF,
Time is a physical property only. This is claimed in the Bible, highlighted by early church fathers, as seen in Irenaeus through Augustine, verified by Big Bang cosmology (which is really early creation cosmology in my book) and even earlier implied by Einsteins theory of Relativity. God is outside the constructs of time but has created time along with the other physical properties of the universe - it is not a linear constant but is actually one with physical space/time. Time can be compressed or lengthened relative to the observer by a number of factors, such as one approached the speed of light or decreases its speed as well. This has been empirically proved. Your GPS would not even work correctly if time compression was not taken into account.

• 2 Timothy 1:9-10 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
• Titus 1:2-3 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;

Cheers
In Christ, Patrick

PS: The Eastern religions claimed the universe was eternal whereas Christianity, Judaism and lastly Islam have always claimed it had a beginning. Christians claim it has an end as well. Paul Davies, back in the 1990's was somewhat astonished and asked how Augustine could have known that. I believe archeology affirms much of the Bible. I also believe the various sciences, as long as they pursue truth, will affirm the Truth of God as real knowledge increases. Real revelation, however, comes from the Word of God as His prophesies attest to.

 

[SPF]

You didn't provide the Scripture that indicates time will cease to exist.

 

[John 1720]

You didn't provide the Scripture that indicates time will cease to exist.

As we have already seen Eternity is independent of time. It is rather time that is the dependent variable relative to Eternity for it's existence. Christ, the eternal word of God condescended into time, until time has served its purpose and the Kingdom has come, God's Will be done on earth as it is in heaven (not the physical heaven but the eternal heaven - God's domain. Christ is the King of the Physical Universe and all things have been made subject to Him as His enemies become His footstool and all things are put underneath His feet. We shall rule with Him as Revelation tells us but our present universe will cease to exist in its present form for God has said:
Isaiah 65:16-18a

• So that he who blesses himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he who swears in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hidden from My eyes.
• "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create (future tense)
• Isaiah 66:22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the LORD, “So shall your descendants and your name remain.
• 2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

The Last Enemy Destroyed is death 1 Corinthians 15:20-28

• But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
• Then comes the end, when He (Christ) delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
• The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.”
• But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He (the Father) who put all things under Him is excepted.
• Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him (God the Father) who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
• Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.

If the first heaven is passed away its physical properties have also indeed passed away. If the new heavens and new earth are indeed going to last eternally then there is no longer any need for entropy or time to be associated with it.

In Christ, Patrick

 

[SPF]

Time is primarily a measurement. It measures change and duration. It's interesting that when you ask someone who believes that time is a created thing when God created time, they seem to indicate that God created time at the same "moment" that God created the first contingent thing. This would make sense, because once something contingent was created, ie - something with a beginning, we then became able to measure it's duration.

I think everything you said can be true with time still existing. I agree that Christ will return, and He will redeems all of creation, creating a new Earth, and heaven will come down to the new earth where Christ will reign.

Humans are created with both a physical and a spiritual nature. We were created for earth, and when Christ returns, we will continue to live on earth (albeit a redeemed and renewed one) into eternity.

But there's no reason to think that time will no longer exist. For surely on the new earth I will be able to say that today I did X and tomorrow I will do Y.

I think the change will come in that we will not suffer the negative affects of time as we currently do. Meaning, we will not age, our memory will not lessen, etc... But there's no reason to think that time itself will cease to exist.

I agree with Dr.William Lane Craig who says:

How shall we construe divine eternity and God's relationship to time? The view that God is simply timeless faces two insuperable difficulties: (1) an atemporal deity cannot be causally related to the temporal world, if temporal becoming is real, and (2) timelessness is incompatible with divine omniscience, if there are tensed facts about the world. On the other hand, we have good reasons to think that time and the universe had a beginning. Therefore, God cannot be infinitely temporal in the past. Perhaps we could say that God sans the universe existed in a topologically amorphous time in which temporally ordered intervals could not be distinguished. But such a state is not different from a state of timelessness. Therefore, the best understanding of eternity and time is that God is timeless sans creation and temporal since creation.

Read more: Divine Eternity | Reasonable Faith

 

[John 1720]

Time is primarily a measurement. It measures change and duration. It's interesting that when you ask someone who believes that time is a created thing when God created time, they seem to indicate that God created time at the same "moment" that God created the first contingent thing. This would make sense, because once something contingent was created, ie - something with a beginning, we then became able to measure it's duration.

• It's much more than a measurement it is a physical property. its initial expansion or stretch marks have been detected throughout the fabric of space/time. See Cosmic Background Explorer - Wikipedia

We speak in finite terms because language itself is within a finite construct and there is little we can do to linguistically represent eternity. God WAS before WAS ever was; now there's a mouthful.
The universe definitely had a beginning and the beginning of time was part of that - even the Scripture say "before time" = preceding time itself. Eternity WAS, IS, and ALWAYS shall be. Just as GOD, Was, Is and Always shall be and is not subject to change. Anything within the bounds of the Physical Universe is subject to change and time.

• Romans 8:20-23 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
  For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

I think everything you said can be true with time still existing. I agree that Christ will return, and He will redeems all of creation, creating a new Earth, and heaven will come down to the new earth where Christ will reign.

Well no one can say what eternity is exactly like but God Himself. Cosmologists cannot say what preceded the initial expansion of the universe. They can trace the physical properties of physics as it existed down to nanoseconds, maybe even perhaps femptoseconds before the universal expansion. However the knowledge of physics ends before the birth of the physical universe. That said there is certainly no time component needed for eternity and without matter or space
there is no time - it is simply infinite existence and without need of it. Why would God inspire Paul to say "before time began" if it were NOT True? Time therefore had a beginning according to the Word of God.

Humans are created with both a physical and a spiritual nature. We were created for earth, and when Christ returns, we will continue to live on earth (albeit a redeemed and renewed one) into eternity.

Until Christ delivers the Kingdom to the Father, the temporal world reflects the eternal. Granted that is not a revelation we totally understand yet we should not ignore that somehow a new heaven and a new earth with new physics is the plan and corruption, which occurs over time, will not be a part of it.

But there's no reason to think that time will no longer exist. For surely on the new earth I will be able to say that today I did X and tomorrow I will do Y.

I think the change will come in that we will not suffer the negative affects of time as we currently do. Meaning, we will not age, our memory will not lessen, etc... But there's no reason to think that time itself will cease to exist.

All I know is that time is mutable and eternity is not; for with God there is no shadow of turning He is always the same. That doesn't mean God cannot act, nor we when we become everlasting beings. We know He acted when He created time, as the Bible makes the statement explicitly, that there was a "before time". Yes that is in a finite language construct that is somewhat tortured but nevertheless conveys something before the beginning of the physical universe formed by one unique verse, "Let there be Light". God not only preexisted the universe and created it but is omnipresent and existent without time or materials. I'm not saying that isn't a hard thing to get our heads around. There is no eternity past and eternity future as some propose because time was born after God said 'Let there be Light' and as the Bible states to us God is before time. Hence He eternally exists without time, and since He is NOT mutable there is no past and future there only IS eternally speaking. He sees our past Creation does not change the Godhead nor eternity. Jesus Himself taught us from the Scriptures, correcting the Sadducees understanding of God's time vs, our time. I think this is as close as we get to the eternal viewpoint.speak eternally many times:

• Matthew 22:32-33 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
• John 8:56-58 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

So Jesus said Abraham saw His day, past tense. When does the Bible tell us Abraham saw Christ's day, which could in fact be the day of the Lord? It doesn't. It would appear that the living are ever before God past, present and future, like a single beautiful painting before the eyes of God who sees past, present and future at once. Wait a second isn't that out of sync with the linearity of time? With respect to us yes. With respect to God, who is not a three dimensional finite being - absolutely not. He is in command of the physical universe as well as in command of time, which is simply a part of it. The universe is not eternal but God Is.
Now we translate eternal and everlasting in the Bible but what does everlasting mean vs eternal? The Bible uses the same Greek word 'αἰώνιος and we use everlasting and eternal interchangeably but Augustine was more careful in its usage. According to Augustine everlasting is a something that falls between eternity and time. Everlasting is neither finite time nor eternity; for time is mutable, while everlastingness is stable and eternity presumes no beginning. We have been given everlasting life according to Augustine but eye hath not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it entered into the mind of man just what that state of being truly is. Just as God can act from eternity so will we be able to act from everlasting. So maybe it will have similarities like time, as you want to infer, but it cannot be the physics of time and space as we currently know to be mutable. It must have similarities like eternity as well, as in never ending but we can't ignore the fact we had a beginning. Eye hath not seen nor ear heard what God is before everlasting but we are not before eternity; therefore Augustine reasoned it is an intermediate measure that has characteristics of eternity. I'm only in the Augustine camp because it makes more sense to me, not because I have received a revelation and fully know.

I agree with Dr.William Lane Craig who says:

How shall we construe divine eternity and God's relationship to time? The view that God is simply timeless faces two insuperable difficulties:
(1) an atemporal deity cannot be causally related to the temporal world, if temporal becoming is real, and
(2) timelessness is incompatible with divine omniscience, if there are tensed facts about the world. On the other hand, we have good reasons to think that time and the universe had a beginning. Therefore, God cannot be infinitely temporal in the past. Perhaps we could say that God sans the universe existed in a topologically amorphous time in which temporally ordered intervals could not be distinguished. But such a state is not different from a state of timelessness. Therefore, the best understanding of eternity and time is that God is timeless sans creation and temporal since creation.
Read more:
Read more: Divine Eternity | Reasonable Faith

I read the article and have some problems with the logic

• A difficulty for a view of divine eternity as timelessness is that if time is tensed, then God, in virtue of His omniscience, must know tensed facts. But tensed facts, such as It is now t, can only be known by a temporally located being.

I disagree with the good doctor on several grounds; for one that is not the historic view from Christianity and two our present cosmology shows us time had an unquestionable beginning. If God is omniscient He can create any construct of temporality He wishes to. After created the universe out of nothing. We know He can create ex-nihlo because the universe is still expanding to this day. It is becoming larger at amazing speeds of expansion. What is on the other side of the expansion? Any cosmologist will tell you "nothing", not time, space just nihlo. In other words nothing becomes existent. The moment before it became part of interstellar space/time there was no such thing as a moment ago but now it belongs to the set called the universe which is very old lady indeed.
Another example might use might be the infamous flatlander, a two dimensional figure that only has awareness of length and width. He can move noth or south or east and west easily but has no concept of up. Up doesn't exist in 2D land. However we superior 3D folks from planet eart are easily aware of up and down. We take a spaceship and enter his world. He never saw us coming we just appeared in flatland out of nowhere. We walk with him, we run with him, we make circles with him and he asks if we can do anything else that maybe he cannot do. So we do a running broadjump right in front of his large sandbox. From the perspective of our 2D flatlander he saw us running until we jumped. Since we are sailing through the air and he is not cognizant of height - he believes we have simply disappeared. When we hit the ground a few seconds later we reenter his 2D purview. He run over and asks how did you make yourself disappear and reappear in a different spot. Obviously the wrong question but if you spoke of verticalness 2D flatlander wouldn't know what you were talking about since vertical is not in his playbook. Notice however 3D man can not only act within the inferior 2D world but also act out in 3D as well. I would state that God can create an inferior dimension of existence as easily as we can do 2D paper cutouts. We operate in a 3D world but know time is a 4th dimension we are subject to. However an eternal Being that is not subject to time can condescend to a 3D lesser world since He Himself owns time and has no problem overcoming the restriction He created for lesser beings. The restriction that God could not understand a temporal world being infinite is an invalid construct according to His nature.

What about knowing the existence PI to its infinite set but only teaching your kids it equals 3.14159? It's only partially right and not exact but a pretty good replica for small jobs. Likewise God can create partial systems of truth and love and life that represent Him in a hazy sort of way but He will always be so much more. He teaches us not to despise the day of small things and that he who is faithful in little is faithful in much.

The good doctor stated up front that the codiscoverer of Calculus gave an argument for the eternal God.

• Leibniz's argument, when properly formulated, leads to the conclusion that time began to exist. The individual premisees are examined and found to be plausible.

The objection then to Leibnitz plausability is invalidated by the above examples.

Read more: Divine Eternity | Reasonable Faith

 

[bhsmte]

This thread may break the record, for the longest posts.

 

[SPF]

John, first off, would you please break your monologues into smaller paragraphs? It makes for an overwhelming read when you don't take a breath.

I would like to point out that I asked you to provide a specific passage that talks about time coming to an end at some point in the future. You have sense gone on to make a couple of very large posts detailing your theological position based upon your exegetical understanding of Scripture. What you have not done however, is actually provide Scripture that directly relates to the issue. I of course knew that would happen as we both know there isn't actually a Scripture that teaches that time will come to an end.

I don't think you can actually have contingent existence without time. Time is primarily a measurement. It measures change and duration. Every single contingent thing in existence can be measured with time, for every single contingent thing in existence has a set beginning.

When God created humanity, He created us "good". He created the universe and humanity in the way that He wanted to. Meaning, we are created as both physical and spiritual beings, and we are purposed to live on a physical plane. There's no reason to suspect that this will change when Christ returns, judges, redeems, restores, and renews creation. We are told in Revelation that heaven will come down to Earth, and Earth is where Christ will dwell.

Now, certainly our existence will look differently once we are in glorified bodies, and no longer suffer the consequences of sin. God's entire creation suffers from the consequences of sin. I think the single biggest difference we will see will be how we relate to time. Meaning, we will not age, our memory will not fade, we won't even get bored! All the "negative" aspects of existing as finite beings will be removed.

But time itself will never go away. So long as there is contingent existence, time will be measurable.

 

[SPF]

It's also worth noting that the Bible is not a philosophical or scientific book. God worked with people, where they were and with what they knew. For instance, the Bible tells us that the sun stood still in the sky. Well, that's how it appeared to the people, and therefore that's how it was recorded. In reality, we know that what probably happened was that the earth stopped rotating. Now, the miracle of course is that God was able to have the earth stop rotating and not have all the bad things occur that would actually happen should our planet instantly stop rotating. It's also possible that he "froze" the entire universe for a time.

 

[John 1720]

John, first off, would you please break your monologues into smaller paragraphs? It makes for an overwhelming read when you don't take a breath.

I would like to point out that I asked you to provide a specific passage that talks about time coming to an end at some point in the future. You have sense gone on to make a couple of very large posts detailing your theological position based upon your exegetical understanding of Scripture. What you have not done however, is actually provide Scripture that directly relates to the issue. I of course knew that would happen as we both know there isn't actually a Scripture that teaches that time will come to an end. [9]

I gave you a passage where God states He will create a new heaven and new earth and the former one is passed away. How explicit is that? If the present heaven and earth is (space/time) and the hevens are inseperable - which they indeed are. Then time comes to an end just as 2+2=4. Remember Jesus said, "I am the Alpha (beginning) and Omega (end) What do you think He was speaking of? I would also like to point out I don't think I got an answer on the question of how heaven and hell are one in the same reality brother. [5.7]
[4.3]

I don't think you can actually have contingent existence without time. Time is primarily a measurement. It measures change and duration. Every single contingent thing in existence can be measured with time, for every single contingent thing in existence has a set beginning. [3]

Sources and evidence for what you think? [.5]

When God created humanity, He created us "good". He created the universe and humanity in the way that He wanted to. Meaning, we are created as both physical and spiritual beings, and we are purposed to live on a physical plane. There's no reason to suspect that this will change when Christ returns, judges, redeems, restores, and renews creation. We are told in Revelation that heaven will come down to Earth, and Earth is where Christ will dwell. [4.75]

Yes, I believe in the 1000year reign as well but Jesus delivers the completed Kingdom to the Father as I previously posted. There is action afterwards then. Did Jesus say He will create a new heaven and new earth during the millenium? [2.5]

Now, certainly our existence will look differently once we are in glorified bodies, and no longer suffer the consequences of sin. God's entire creation suffers from the consequences of sin. I think the single biggest difference we will see will be how we relate to time. Meaning, we will not age, our memory will not fade, we won't even get bored! All the "negative" aspects of existing as finite beings will be removed.

But time itself will never go away. So long as there is contingent existence, time will be measurable. [5.2]

Biblical sources?Was that short enough but who's counting? [.6]
In Christ, Patrick John 17:20

 

[SPF]

I gave you a passage where God states He will create a new heaven and new earth and the former one is passed away. How explicit is that?

It's as explicit as me telling my wife we're buying a new car and a new home. There is absolutely no need to suggest, or even think that the new Earth will be any different in terms of a physical existence than the original Earth that God created and said was good. The new heavens will be on the new Earth. There's no reason to think that the substance of the new Earth will be any different than the first one before sin entered.

I would also like to point out I don't think I got an answer on the question of how heaven and hell are one in the same reality brother.

Oh I did, the problem is you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the definition of reality, which in turn causes you to mis-use the term.

Simply put - whatever is, is reality. Reality is the external world as it is. There is only one reality.

For example, in reality, God either exists or does not exist. Our personal belief actually has no bearing on the reality of God's existence.

You and I can agree on the following: At one "time" only the eternal God existed. That was reality - only God. God then created the universe, and it was reality that a universe existed. God created you and I, and so it was true that in reality you and I existed. There will come a time when Christ returns, redeems, restores, and sends people along to their final destination.

In reality, some people will dwell with Christ on the new earth, and some people will be thrown into the lake of fire which was made for Satan and the fallen angels. In reality, people will be in one of those two places.

Basically, anything that is "real" is a description of reality. There are no multiple realities. What there are though are unique and different experiences between people in reality.

Moving on...

You want me to provide evidence for this:

I don't think you can actually have contingent existence without time. Time is primarily a measurement. It measures change and duration. Every single contingent thing in existence can be measured with time, for every single contingent thing in existence has a set beginning.

Time is primarily a measurement that measures change and or duration. Webster words it thusly:

a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

I think it stands to reason VIA common sense that all contingent things can be tracked VIA time. That is, all contingent things have a beginning. All things that have a beginning therefore have an age.

So put in theological terms (which is how you like to dialogue), it will be possible to say that we have been on the New Earth for x years.

I'm not sure what I said Biblically that was controversial that you want sources for. I think we are in agreement with regards to:

1. Our existence will look different once we are in our glorified bodies (by look different I mean freed from our sinful nature).
2. We will no longer suffer the consequences of sin.
3. The entire creation suffers the consequences of sin.

The above three statements are the theological statements I made from the section you quoted asking for Biblical support. If you actually disagree with them, then we can discuss that, but I would think we are in agreement and so Biblical support seems unnecessary.

As for my other comments, I don't need Biblical support for those. One of the consequences of sin is that we die. It should be rather obvious that a big part of death involves aging. As we will be entering an existence in which we will have immortal bodies, I think it should be a safe statement to say that the adverse effects of time will not be applicable to us.

 

[John 1720]

It's as explicit as me telling my wife we're buying a new car and a new home. There is absolutely no need to suggest, or even think that the new Earth will be any different in terms of a physical existence than the original Earth that God created and said was good. The new heavens will be on the new Earth. There's no reason to think that the substance of the new Earth will be any different than the first one before sin entered. [5]

It's a new heaven not just a new earth & the old heaven won't be remembered. The present heavens are associated with entropy, the new one not. There's no need of the Sun for God shall be its light. OK you reject my Scriptural support but begs the question where is yours to prove your case? Eschatology & Theology doesn't matter with regard to salvation. You are Christian if you are following Jesus& I consider you a brother. You said there's no reason to think and that's fine if you do not interpret as I do. I've no wish to argue even if you've no supportive Scriptures [6]

Oh I did, the problem is you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the definition of reality, which in turn causes you to mis-use the term.

Simply put - whatever is, is reality. Reality is the external world as it is. There is only one reality.

For example, in reality, God either exists or does not exist. Our personal belief actually has no bearing on the reality of God's existence. [4.5]

Well I would agree that God is certainly a reality because I believe God is True, if God were false He would be a false reality. However, do you NOT believe God made the universe a reality? It is subject to frustration as I pointed; a reality subordinate God reality which He created to be temporal. So for the record you believe the souls in Hell experience the same reality as those that experience the blessings of God's heaven? [4.5]

You and I can agree on the following: At one "time" only the eternal God existed. That was reality - only God. God then created the universe, and it was reality that a universe existed. God created you and I, and so it was true that in reality you and I existed. There will come a time when Christ returns, redeems, restores, and sends people along to their final destination.

In reality, some people will dwell with Christ on the new earth, and some people will be thrown into the lake of fire which was made for Satan and the fallen angels. In reality, people will be in one of those two places.

Basically, anything that is "real" is a description of reality. There are no multiple realities. What there are though are unique and different experiences between people in reality. [8]

You accepted both state and true or actual in definition of reality. Are you now backpedaling? So if I'm in truly in a state of suffering hell can I state I truly have the joys of heaven and be truthful? Pardon but it seems an fantastic claim to make that everyone's reality is the same. Is your reality the same as God's? What God creates is true and real as well as a state of being but I would not consider my reality to be God's reality, as I am not God. God is real and I am real but I am not God nor do we share the same reality of being. I think that is a true statement but don't know how to make truth from your postulate. Sounds similar to Mormon theology, where they think the reality is everyone winds up or evolves to become God. [7.7]

Moving on...

You want me to provide evidence for this:

I don't think you can actually have contingent existence without time. Time is primarily a measurement. It measures change and duration. Every single contingent thing in existence can be measured with time, for every single contingent thing in existence has a set beginning.

Time is primarily a measurement that measures change and or duration. Webster words it thusly:

a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

I think it stands to reason VIA common sense that all contingent things can be tracked VIA time. That is, all contingent things have a beginning. All things that have a beginning therefore have an age.

So put in theological terms (which is how you like to dialogue), it will be possible to say that we have been on the New Earth for x years. [11.5]

You seem to be stuck in 17th century Newtonian Physics brother. Webster gives a classical definition for time, as we have understood until the 20th century when it was discovered that space and time are inseparable. Spacetime - Wikipedia The measurement assertion is therefore archaic as I previously mentioned. If it was as you say your GPS wouldn't even work correctly. Time is not even a constant but a variable that is quite mutable by both the gravitational warping of space and relative velocities, especially as we approach the speed of light. Common sense isn't all that common in trying to produce a proof that matches up with Modern Physics. The Beginning of TIme [7.6]

I'm not sure what I said Biblically that was controversial that you want sources for. I think we are in agreement with regards to:

1. Our existence will look different once we are in our glorified bodies (by look different I mean freed from our sinful nature).
2. We will no longer suffer the consequences of sin.
3. The entire creation suffers the consequences of sin.

The above three statements are the theological statements I made from the section you quoted asking for Biblical support. If you actually disagree with them, then we can discuss that, but I would think we are in agreement and so Biblical support seems unnecessary.

As for my other comments, I don't need Biblical support for those. One of the consequences of sin is that we die. It should be rather obvious that a big part of death involves aging. As we will be entering an existence in which we will have immortal bodies, I think it should be a safe statement to say that the adverse effects of time will not be applicable to us. [11]

It was with respect to the millennia of Christ's reign, which you and I both agree eschatologically will occur.(we don't agree on much else in our studies but that's ok bro) The millennia, however, isn't where the Father creates a new heaven and new earth. During the millennia only the dead in Christ are raised as Revelation tells us. The end is the Great White throne judgment not the millennia of Christ's reign. Doesn't seem like you're following the new heaven timeline. [5]

• Revelation 20:5-6 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison
• 1 Corinthians 15:22-26 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death

May God bless,
In Christ, Patrick
PS: Do you see any sense in continuing to rehash? We can just agree to disagree.

 

[SPF]

It's a new heaven not just a new earth & the old heaven won't be remembered. The present heavens are associated with entropy, the new one not. There's no need of the Sun for God shall be its light.

You're right, but it doesn't follow that there won't be time. Perhaps entropy is part of the curse and it won't exist once Christ sets all things right. Again, mankind was created as both a physical and spiritual being that was designed to exist in a physical world. There's no good reason to think that we won't exist linearly like we do now when Christ returns. Sure, it will look different, I've never said it won't. Sure, Christ will provide the light perhaps in a different manner than stars, sure. But that doesn't mean time doesn't exist. Again, everything contingent has a beginning, and everything with a beginning can be tracked in terms of duration. So sure, the adverse effects of time in relation to sin won't exist, but time it existing? There's no reason to think that.

Well I would agree that God is certainly a reality because I believe God is True, if God were false He would be a false reality. However, do you NOT believe God made the universe a reality? It is subject to frustration as I pointed; a reality subordinate God reality which He created to be temporal. So for the record you believe the souls in Hell experience the same reality as those that experience the blessings of God's heaven?

And again, you're still not grasping the basic understanding of what reality is. Seriously, stop saying "a reality", that's non-sensical. There is only reality.
Whatever is, is reality. Reality encompasses all that there is. Each person's experience of reality is unique, but whatever is, is reality. Of course I believe that God made the universe. And when God made the universe, the universe existed in reality.
I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. There is only one reality. Everything that is, is reality. Your experience of reality will be different than God's experience of reality, as it will be different from my experience of reality.

 

[John 1720]

You're right, but it doesn't follow that there won't be time. Perhaps entropy is part of the curse and it won't exist once Christ sets all things right. Again, mankind was created as both a physical and spiritual being that was designed to exist in a physical world. There's no good reason to think that we won't exist linearly like we do now when Christ returns. Sure, it will look different, I've never said it won't. Sure, Christ will provide the light perhaps in a different manner than stars, sure. But that doesn't mean time doesn't exist. Again, everything contingent has a beginning, and everything with a beginning can be tracked in terms of duration. So sure, the adverse effects of time in relation to sin won't exist, but time it existing? There's no reason to think that. [8.5]

OK, who can know for sure. How does it follow that after the Great White Throne judgment there will be time in the everlasting? [1.5]

And again, you're still not grasping the basic understanding of what reality is. Seriously, stop saying "a reality", that's non-sensical. There is only reality.
Whatever is, is reality. Reality encompasses all that there is. Each person's experience of reality is unique, but whatever is, is reality. Of course I believe that God made the universe. And when God made the universe, the universe existed in reality.
I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. There is only one reality. Everything that is, is reality. Your experience of reality will be different than God's experience of reality, as it will be different from my experience of reality. [8]

May I remind you, once again, that in post #259 you agreed with the definition of reality being:
Patrick's Reality adopted:

• "the quality of state or being actual or true in objective existence."

to which you REPLIED:

• "I'm perfectly fine with that definition of reality. "

So you are perfectly fine with the concept that reality has a:

1. Quality of State or Actual Being
2. That reality is true in objective existence

But then you say there can only be one reality and two realities cannot coexist.
So there cannot be more than one form of consciousness, self-awareness and capacity for experience? How do you reconcile that with the higher reality of our eternal God and the lower temporal reality of a human being. Just the terms alone that we use of being (existence) should clue you in as we call God "The Supreme Being" and we call ourselves "Human Beings".
They are in fact both realities but they are not the same, nor will they ever be; although I propose our present reality will be transformed. Okay enough of my thoughts. Let's follow your basic premise to its natural conclusion. There is only one reality, God Himself. Do I have that right? If so then God alone has consciousness and so either:

1. He did not create any consciousness in us that can be construed as a separate reality.
   
   • OR
2. Our consciousness no different than God's. It is the same as God's, therefore we share the very same reality as God, since your postulate states He is the one and only reality,

One or the other needs be true or else your postulate is a false reality. Therefore it follows and is axiomatic that

1. You and I don't really exist since we have no consciousness and I cannot figure out, with respect to you and I, why nothing is speaking with nobody. In your reality the word "I" expressing identity is meaningless with respect to I'm not in reality having a conversation with a real being and this post is a product of imagination. There's also this thing about Creation and all that must be a figment but I cannot say that because I cannot think or imagine, therefore I am not real and have no reality.
2. Since we share the same reality as God, the one reality we are in fact not subject to lies, sins, death, etc. because God can't lie, and we are in fact are at the very least (as the Mormons are fond of saying) on our way to become God; the ultimate and only reality. I keep wondering why God created the heavens and earth and people have an independence to sin and reject truth in the first place? We can do things God cannot lie lie and sin and yet He is free; that's because in a higher reality God alone is truth and falsehood is not only NOT part of His consciousness but He abhors it. Maybe you can enlighten me to something so basic as human reality and God's reality being one and the same? Or that we are just unconscious until God creates the perfect universe? It also follows that the below text must be false if we share the same conscious reality as God or have no consciousness.

• "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." - Isaiah 55:9

1. This is tongue in cheek of course because obviously a truth pursuer has a very different reality than the God of Truth, and His Quality of State. Since we share the completely same reality as the One reality it would follow that we are not subject to lies, because God can't lie, and we are in fact are at least (as the Mormons say) on our way to becoming God; the ultimate and only reality. It does beg the question why would God create the heavens and earth and people since we are truly one and the same already; with no shadow of change and not subject to change/mutability? Is that indeed our reality and representative of our existence SPF? Maybe you can enlighten me to something so basic that philosophers and theologians have pondered over for centuries when you've had the inside track all along? So much nonsense I guess that people have drawn different conclusions than yourself.
2. Well if I have no independent consciousness, even though this conversation is not real, at least I can still talk to God who I know is real. Wait a second how can I know anything? I would ask you but you are not real. What a conundrum this singularity of reality is but I must accept it if I had any sense.

I find it somewhat amazing that you offer no proof for your singularity of reality but that you fully expect me to accept your definition and chastise me for lengthy explanations in order to support my postulate. There have been many deep opinions that we should consider on the philosophy of reality. I spoke of Plato and Augustine but another the modern world should reconsider is Descartes. He stated long ago 'Cognito ergo sum' -'I think therefore I am'. He posits that we know we are real because we a have consciousness; a consciousness whereby we may reason and doubt, and pursue truth. This is the human reality. God was dear to the heart of Descartes even though Paschal thought he border on mechanistic. Descartes stated "His idea of a Being that is supremely perfect and infinite, of all the ideas that are in me is the clearest. The idea that I have of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct. We should ask ourselves with respect to Cognito; Does God in His consciousness doubt or in reality is He already Truth and not a truth pursuer, like us? Certainly the thought that we are God, planted in us by Satan we would both agree is a lie. However when we make God just like ourselves it is no less a sin than having it as the former. Are His thoughts, eternal Being and ways not in a higher reality than us?
God is eternally conscious of eternity, which is a state whereby all is TRUE and done. There is no room for falsehood or sin - in the everlasting, so its "Quality of State and Being" doesn't allow for anything except what is TRUE. The timetable for the Great White Throne Judgment is post millennial. See Revelation 20:11-15 It is after this when the New Heavens and Earth is created with new physical properties where God's Will be Done on Earth as it is in Heaven Eternal becomes a reality. Notice that death is also post millennial as well. Isaiah 65:19-22

• Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Philosophers and Theologians have written reams on this but since you've no wish to evaluate this in your entrenched position. I see no further need to go on about it.
In Christ, Patrick

 

[SPF]

Okay enough of my thoughts. Let's follow your basic premise to its natural conclusion. There is only one reality, God Himself. Do I have that right? If so then God alone has consciousness and so either:

No, statements such as, "There is only one reality, God Himself" are not something I would say. What I would say about that statement is that it's non-sensical and shows the person saying it does not understand what the term "reality" means. Thus, everything that followed in your post is unfortunately a straw-man as you are arguing against a position I don't hold.

• "the quality of state or being actual or true in objective existence."

So you are perfectly fine with the concept that reality has a:

1. Quality of State or Actual Being
2. That reality is true in objective existence

I am perfectly fine with that definition, I think the problem is that you don't actually understand what that means. Reality is a description of what actually is. Reality is not a subjective construct unique to individuals. This statement captures reality well, but doesn't seem to be getting very far with you: "Whatever is, is reality."

Reality exists externally to you or I. What we think, feel, and believe about reality doesn't actually have any impact upon what IS reality.

The definition of truth is tied very closely in with the definition of reality, and is also something that you seem to have a difficult notion with. Truth can be properly defined as, "That which corresponds to reality."

For example, let's consider the truth-claim "God exists". Well, based on the law of the excluded middle (one of three basic laws of logic), we can be certain that this statement is either true or false. So what we could say would be this: "In reality, either God exists or God does not exist." Our belief about whether or not God exists does not have any bearing on the reality and truthfulness of whether or not God exists.

It seems like you might want to say something like "In my reality God exists, but in your reality God does not exist." But that's patently false, because reality is not based upon our beliefs.

While reality simply is whatever is, our experience of reality can be, and is unique between different people. My experience of reality lends itself towards a sunny day. Your experience of reality may be lending itself towards a rainy day. But all that means is that in reality it's raining where you are and it's sunny where I am. One reality, two experiences. The same can be applied to the example of heaven and hell as you've brought up. In reality both heaven and hell exist. So just like in reality you and I are in different locations now and experiencing a different weather pattern, so it is possible that two people are in different locations having vastly different experiences. But they both live within reality.

OK, who can know for sure. How does it follow that after the Great White Throne judgment there will be time in the everlasting?

It follows because everything contingent has a beginning and its existence can easily be measured. Why would the default position be that when Christ returns and sets all things right that existence will look entirely alien, so alien that we can't even comprehend what it will look like in comparison to when He originally created mankind, the universe, and said it was good?

We are contingent beings, that will never, under any circumstance change. We exist physically, and spiritually in a linear fashion. There is no theological reason to think that will change. Christ is going to restore, redeem, and renew all things. There will be a new Earth, and Heaven will come down to it. Christ will dwell, here on the new Earth with us, into eternity. There is no good reason to think that this experience with Christ will not be just like it was with Adam and Eve with God in the garden prior to the fall.

 

[John 1720]

Overall this is a much better post than your previous ones.

No, statements such as, "There is only one reality, God Himself" are not something I would say. What I would say about that statement is that it's non-sensical and shows the person saying it does not understand what the term "reality" means. Thus, everything that followed in your post is unfortunately a straw-man as you are arguing against a position I don't hold.

How did I make a strawman argument when I specifically asked you for confirmation if my summation of what you've been saying was correct?
[/QUOTE="John 1720"]
There is only one reality, God Himself. Do I have that right?
[/QUOTE]

• Please look up the definition of strawman argument.
• So glad you agree with the postulate that Reality has a:

1. Quality of State or Actual Being
2. And that reality is true in objective existence

I am perfectly fine with that definition, I think the problem is that you don't actually understand what that means. Reality is a description of what actually is. Reality is not a subjective construct unique to individuals. This statement captures reality well, but doesn't seem to be getting very far with you: "Whatever is, is reality."

• Lots of questions based on this premise. So does your postulate of Reality not include God? In other words is God subject to Reality? What about quality of state and actual being? It appears your premise is without need of quality of state nor does it need actual being or Being. Is that correct? Please clarify.

Reality exists externally to you or I. What we think, feel, and believe about reality doesn't actually have any impact upon what IS reality.

Yes I see that you believe this, which is why I posited the question above. Reality exists external to us and I assume you apply this to God as well, since you rejected my first assumption that you think God is the only ultimate Reality.

The definition of truth is tied very closely in with the definition of reality, and is also something that you seem to have a difficult notion with. Truth can be properly defined as, "That which corresponds to reality."

Thanks so much for clearing up my difficulty brother and providing me with your living streams of condescension. Maybe you can straighten out the rest of the Philosophers and theologians I mentioned too. Now if only your logic matched the magnitude of your condescension perhaps the theological, metaphysical, and philosophical world would be all set and we could next work out world peace as well. I think what you believe I am having a hard time grasping is actually a rejection of your hypothesis, and although this post clarifies your position somewhat better I'm still not buying.

For example, let's consider the truth-claim "God exists". Well, based on the law of the excluded middle (one of three basic laws of logic), we can be certain that this statement is either true or false. So what we could say would be this: "In reality, either God exists or God does not exist." Our belief about whether or not God exists does not have any bearing on the reality and truthfulness of whether or not God exists. I posited that because in truth we have cognition we are real, and have reality, not that our thoughts somehow control reality. - Big difference!

I agree that this is both logical and true; unfortunately I never made the claim that you posit. So that truly is a straw-man argument.

It seems like you might want to say something like "In my reality God exists, but in your reality God does not exist." But that's patently false, because reality is not based upon our beliefs.

Superfluous (see my above comment) appears if you think this is what we're debating you may not understand what I am postulating.

While reality simply is whatever is, our experience of reality can be, and is unique between different people. My experience of reality lends itself towards a sunny day. Your experience of reality may be lending itself towards a rainy day. But all that means is that in reality it's raining where you are and it's sunny where I am. One reality, two experiences. The same can be applied to the example of heaven and hell as you've brought up. In reality both heaven and hell exist. So just like in reality you and I are in different locations now and experiencing a different weather pattern, so it is possible that two people are in different locations having vastly different experiences. But they both live within reality.

While I disagree I believe this is a much more fluid response on your position. I believe our capacity to experience is integral to consciousness and that, in truth, consciousness is what makes us real beings in reality. In Truth I would agree to that whatever is real makes up reality. But whatever is the same mathematically must belong to the same set that necessarily meets quality of state and objective existance, both needing truth or else they are false realities. God is True, He has a quality state of Actual Being so hence His reality is true in objective existence.
However His creation has a Quality State of being also, all be it a very different quality state of actual Being. Creation also has an objective existence. Both posits differ greatly from one another and are certainly not the same. Both, however, are realities and independently meet the criteria even if one is the independent constant that never varies and one is the dependent variable.

It follows because everything contingent has a beginning and its existence can easily be measured. Why would the default position be that when Christ returns and sets all things right that existence will look entirely alien, so alien that we can't even comprehend what it will look like in comparison to when He originally created mankind, the universe, and said it was good?

Really? When did God begin? How can you measure Him or His attributes when He says things like Psalms 103:12 to show the depth of His forgiveness.

1. We are contingent beings, that will never, under any circumstance change.
2. We exist physically, and spiritually in a linear fashion.
3. There is no theological reason to think that will change.
4. Christ is going to restore, redeem, and renew all things.
5. There will be a new Earth, and Heaven will come down to it.
6. Christ will dwell, here on the new Earth with us, into eternity.
7. There is no good reason to think that this experience with Christ will not be just like it was with Adam and Eve with God in the garden prior to the fall.

1. Being dependent upon God as beings but the Bible says we shall all be changed.
   • Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. - 1 Corinthians 15:51-53
   • That sound like change to me
2. Can you prove we exist in a linear fashion?
3. Superfluous - see response #1
4. No argument
5. Actually the New Jerusalem will come down but before Jesus turns over the Kingdom to the Father and a new heaven and earth are created.
6. No, then come the end, after the millennium, when all Christ's enemies, including death are removed and He turns His Kingdom over to the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28
7. I disagree notice there is not any tree of the knowledge of good and evil in our future abode but 2 trees of life instead of one - neither which Adam ate of. Notice God is our light and the Sun is no longer required.
   • Revelation 22:1-5

In Christ, Patrick

 

[SPF]

So does your postulate of Reality not include God?

Have you not read anything I've typed? Reality constitutes all that is. Whatever is, is. Does God exist? Yes. So in reality, God exists.

God is True, He has a quality state of Actual Being so hence His reality is true in objective existence.
However His creation has a Quality State of being also, all be it a very different quality state of actual Being. Creation also has an objective existence. Both posits differ greatly from one another and are certainly not the same. Both, however, are realities and independently meet the criteria even if one is the independent constant that never varies and one is the dependent variable.

You are correct that God's experience of reality is vastly different than our experience of reality. But that doesn't follow that there are multiple realities. Just as in reality it's sunny for me, and in reality, it's rainy for you - only one reality, just a different experience of it.

Really? When did God begin?

Come on John, really? God is NOT a contingent being. Indeed, God is the only non-contingent being. On a side note, I think William Lane Craig does a great job with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

• Being dependent upon God as beings but the Bible says we shall all be changed.
  • Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. - 1 Corinthians 15:51-53
  • That sound like change to me

• • Yes, it certainly is change. Glorified bodies that will not be subject to the adverse effects of sin. But nowhere does that change indicate we will somehow exist outside of time. There's no reason to think that our existence will not be in the same fashion that Adam and Eve's was when they were in the garden and in the presence of God.

Can you prove we exist in a linear fashion?

Sure. Take out your clock and look at the second hand. Then type out your response to me, and when you're done look at your watch. You'll see that time has passed. It's because we exist in a linear world that can be tracked with time, which measures change/duration.