Eternity has to have a beginning but it can be endless

[fisherman_carl]

Eternity is define as continuous time without beginning and end. Here we provide an argument to show that eternity has to have a beginning but it could be endless. When we said that eternity does not have any end or beginning we mean that if it takes infinity to reach to eternal future or past if we start from now. It is simple to understand that it takes infinite amount of waiting from eternal past to reach now which is impossible hence we cannot have eternal past. This means that everything which is time bound has to have a beginning which start from finite past too.

The word eternity can have more than one meaning. When talking about time it is usually meant to convey unending time. However, when applied to God it often means outside of time, or timelessness.

ETERNITY
infinite or unending time.
“their love was sealed for eternity”
synonyms: ever, all time, perpetuity
“the memory will remain for eternity”

• a state to which time has no application; timelessness.

Theology

• endless life after death.

I agree with you that things within time must have a beginning, indeed time itself, must have a beginning. And, that it would be impossible for there to have been an infinite past. However, in order for all things within time (and time itself) to have a beginning there must be something that exists outside of time, that causes time and all things that exist in time to be actualized or to exist. Because you can’t have these things popping into existence uncaused and from nothing. Nothing can not cause anything. It makes no sense to say everything came into existence from nothing and by nothing. If you can see that time must have a beginning, and everything in time has a beginning, then you can also see that there must be a timeless cause of these things. A fixed point if you will from which all time is traced back to.

 

[Bahman]

And while we’re defining things, maybe we should define time as well. I believe St. Augustine said that he knew what time was until you asked him.

Time is a variable which allow us to measure changes.

I’ll throw out a definition. Time is a privation. Just as darkness is a privation of light. Time is a privation of eternity. Time is a restriction. Interesting idea.

I don’t think so.

 

[Bahman]

What?? Time is *very *similar to space – that is why they are sometimes referred to collectively as space-time.

The fact that time is coupled with space in special and general relativity doesn’t implement that time is similar to space.

You can’t exist “outside” space either (as in, in a physical location outside of space), but it’s clear that space is not needed for certain things to exist.

Nothing can exist outside of space since outside of space is only void.

This has been made quite clear by recent scientific theories – at one point, time and space did not exist. This implies that something “outside” time AND space caused the universe (since they could not cause themselves). Any claim to the contrary is directly contradicted by the evidence. Your logic here is thus fatally flawed.

There is no evidence that causality is true at the point of big bang. We don’t have any theory that could explain that point. Any physical theory simply deals with the prediction one state of affair in term of previous state. All physical theories are time dependent so they cannot explain the point of big bang when there was no time.

 

[Bahman]

This is not necessarily the Christian definition of eternity as relates to God and I don’t think very many Christian philosophers accept it today. Interestingly, there isn’t a *precise *definition of God’s eternity, there is some debate about it. Some argue that God is eternal in time (that is, he stretches through all time);

That cannot be true since as it was discussed time has a beginning.

others argue that the verses referring to God’s eternity actually mean he is “outside” time.

That is incorrect too since we don’t have objective time hence outside time is meaningless.

Regardless, our argument as it has been put forward would not, as you seem to think, conflict at all with the Christian view. It might conflict (in theory), with a particular interpretation, but that would merely prove that interpretation to be wrong and one of the others to be correct.

In the a-temporal view, God’s eternity is more like the number “0” than the set of all numbers from (-infinity to +infinity). It’s not really *any *time at all. You really *must *start listening to William Lane Craig if you are interested in this. Eternity is one of his favorite topics and he goes over it in depth.

Please read: reasonablefaith.org/defenders-3-podcast/transcript/t03-05

reasonablefaith.org/defenders-3-podcast/transcript/t03-06

reasonablefaith.org/defenders-3-podcast/transcript/t03-06

If you would rather listen to videos, go here: reasonablefaith.org/defenders-3-podcast/s3

Videos 5-7 are on time and how that relates to God. The discussion is complex, but truly fascinating.

I will go through them later.

Actually, for once I agree with you. Shock and horror! What has happened to the world!

Your logic correctly comprehends that an infinity of time cannot, properly speaking, exist because it causes logical contradictions. Therefore, time had to have a beginning. This is completely consistent with and indeed, supports the Christian view of God creating time and the universe. William Lane Craig has actually used this reasoning to argue *for *God.

So who knew? In all your logic statements you actually reasoned yourself to a position that *supports *the Christian worldview, rather than refuting it. Imagine that.

There is no reason to accept that causality is true at the point of big bang since time did not exist at the point. Hence, with all due respect my argument doesn’t support Christian world view.

 

[Bahman]

The word eternity can have more than one meaning. When talking about time it is usually meant to convey unending time. However, when applied to God it often means outside of time, or timelessness.

I agree with you that things within time must have a beginning, indeed time itself, must have a beginning. And, that it would be impossible for there to have been an infinite past. However, in order for all things within time (and time itself) to have a beginning there must be something that exists outside of time, that causes time and all things that exist in time to be actualized or to exist. Because you can’t have these things popping into existence uncaused and from nothing. Nothing can not cause anything. It makes no sense to say everything came into existence from nothing and by nothing. If you can see that time must have a beginning, and everything in time has a beginning, then you can also see that there must be a timeless cause of these things. A fixed point if you will from which all time is traced back to.

The fact that time has a beginning shows that causality did not rule at the big bang point.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The fact that time has a beginning shows that causality did not rule at the big bang point.

I don’t see the logic in that statement. I don’t see how you could go from absolute nothing to something without at least an outside cause. That would be worse than magic. Because at least with magic you have the magician. When the rabbit comes out of the hat there is a magician that pulled the rabbit out.

 

[JimG]

Eternity is a mode of existence in which a being has no extension in time.

Beings who exist in time have a timeline. They experience their existence not as a whole but as a sequence of events. I can only experience my existence as a sequence of past, present and future. I do not ever hold all of my being at once. I can never hold all of my being until I enter eternity.

A being who exists in eternity rather than time experience his existence as a whole and as a unity. There is no separation into past present and future. All is now.

Similarly, spirit is a being with no extension in space. It is not spread out over a sequence of places, but is present wholly wherever it acts.

 

[LethalMouse]

A more corporeal linear example with no beginning:

Infinity…-3, -2,-1,0,1,2,3…infinity

 

[fisherman_carl]

A more corporeal linear example with no beginning:

Infinity…-3, -2,-1,0,1,2,3…infinity

Aah, but infinity is never actually reached. It is only a potential. Consider how counting to infinity would be impossible. Because no matter how large a number you have, you can always have a larger number. You can talk about a theoretical infinity, but you can not have an actual infinite number of things.

 

[LethalMouse]

Aah, but infinity is never actually reached. It is only a potential. Consider how counting to infinity would be impossible. Because no matter how large a number you have, you can always have a larger number. You can talk about a theoretical infinity, but you can not have an actual infinite number of things.

Hence only God can… it is beyond the scope of our limitations. You both admit true infinity and decry it based on unattainability.

Mentally I can percieve infinity…eh… not sure about everyone, I have met those who can’t mental image an atom or gravity… I find such a person should not undertake thinking they can out logic God but if you must, then I suggest you first start trying to out logic small miracles etc… then work on the grandness of the universe. If one can not wrap their mind around simpler human conditions, then I would imagine the eternity would be too big to chew.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t see the logic in that statement.

Causality simply means that one state of affair at a specific point causes another state later. So we need at least two points one follows another one. This is a simple notion of time. Any physical theory deals with causality and needs time. We don’t have any point before Big Bang point hence we cannot have any physical theory which can explain the Big Bang.

I don’t see how you could go from absolute nothing to something without at least an outside cause.

You need time for any causation. So an outside cause doesn’t resolve the problem. It just trap you inside an infinite regress. The only solution for this situation is to accept that there is everything in Big Bang point. The point is however is singular meaning that everything is mixed at that single point. The point however should be unstable so it can open up automatically.

 

[LethalMouse]

Causality simply means that one state of affair at a specific point causes another state later. So we need at least two points one follows another one. This is a simple notion of time. Any physical theory deals with causality and needs time. We don’t have any point before Big Bang point hence we cannot have any physical theory which can explain the Big Bang.

**
You need time for any causation**. So an outside cause doesn’t resolve the problem. It just trap you inside an infinite regress. The only solution for this situation is to accept that there is everything in Big Bang point. The point is however is singular meaning that everything is mixed at that single point. The point however should be unstable so it can open up automatically.

What if time is a creation? You see things as having to be “in time” watch Dr. Who… and the Void. A non theological take on something not requiring time to be “in” therefore it does not need time to create it

 

[fisherman_carl]

Hence only God can… it is beyond the scope of our limitations. You both admit true infinity and decry it based on unattainability.

Mentally I can percieve infinity…eh… not sure about everyone, I have met those who can’t mental image an atom or gravity… I find such a person should not undertake thinking they can out logic God but if you must, then I suggest you first start trying to out logic small miracles etc… then work on the grandness of the universe. If one can not wrap their mind around simpler human conditions, then I would imagine the eternity would be too big to chew.

If there were an infinite number of things in existence, like an infinite amount of past time, or an infinite amount of particles, etc. then I think God could fathom it, as the author of it. But, I don’t think there are an infinite number of things in actuality. There is only the theoretical infinite. Where we can imagine an infinite as a set that never ends. But, just because we can imagine such a set does not mean such a set could actually exist in actuality. If for instance there were an infinite set of electrons, then that is all there would be is electrons since if you had an infinite number of them then there would be no room for anything else. You can have a future that potentially never ends. But, you can not have a past that never begun if you are in time. Even, if you could imagine it. In the future you could never attain infinity because no matter how much time you have existed for, you could always exist longer, and thus infinity is never attained. Yet, for you to have existed in the infinite past would mean that somehow you have already attained infinity and are continuing past it. Which is impossible.

Here is some reading on the subject of God and infinity.
reasonablefaith.org/god-and-infinity

We shouldn’t imagine God as sitting for a infinite amount of time before deciding to create the universe. As, he is timeless, all time comes from him.

 

[KidCatholic1]

I think here is your problem. You understand eternity as simply a larger quantity or extent of time. It is not simply an infinite extent of time.

Yes. Eternity is not time-bound.

Precisely.

 

[LethalMouse]

If there were an infinite number of things in existence, like an infinite amount of past time, or an infinite amount of particles, etc. then I think God could fathom it, as the author of it. But, I don’t think there are an infinite number of things in actuality. There is only the theoretical infinite. Where we can imagine an infinite as a set that never ends. But, just because we can imagine such a set does not mean such a set could actually exist in actuality. If for instance there were an infinite set of electrons, then that is all there would be is electrons since if you had an infinite number of them then there would be no room for anything else. You can have a future that potentially never ends. But, you can not have a past that never begun if you are in time. Even, if you could imagine it. In the future you could never attain infinity because no matter how much time you have existed for, you could always exist longer, and thus infinity is never attained. Yet, for you to have existed in the infinite past would mean that somehow you have already attained infinity and are continuing past it. Which is impossible.

Here is some reading on the subject of God and infinity.
reasonablefaith.org/god-and-infinity

We shouldn’t imagine God as sitting for a infinite amount of time before deciding to create the universe. As, he is timeless, all time comes from him.

Okay, but the entire point here is for you is infinity within time. I submit time as we know it as a creation with infinity existing apart or God existing infinity outside time. Therefore I used the number scale as a corporeal linear aid to guid the mental thought of the OP and thread etc… the linesr model I submitted was merely a best example but not a what it actually is. We can draw a metaphor or such to help describe something unknown but no true description is more accurate than its actual being…

How can I explain Michael Jackson to someone who does not know him but knows Elvis?

MJ is the King of Pop in the same manner as Elvis was the King of Rock

But this does not make MJ Elvis, in truth you will not know MJ until you know MJ no matter how many similair examples I can give.

 

[Bahman]

What if time is a creation? You see things as having to be “in time” watch Dr. Who… and the Void. A non theological take on something not requiring time to be “in” therefore it does not need time to create it

Time could be a part of creation. You in fact need time to see how things, such as space, emerges from Big Bang. We however have a problem here. If time is created/caused we need another time to allow this causation hence you end up with infinite regress.

 

[LethalMouse]

Time could be a part of creation. You in fact need time to see how things, such as space, emerges from Big Bang. We however have a problem here. If time is created/caused we need another time to allow this causation hence you end up with infinite regress.

You need time because you are in creation. You always limit things to YOU. You are not God, ergo you cannot see everything

 

[Bahman]

You need time because you are in creation. You always limit things to YOU. You are not God, ergo you cannot see everything

That was not a good answer.

 

[LethalMouse]

That was not a good answer.

Oh… didn’t realize you were. My humble apologies.

 

[o_mlly]

Eternity is define as continuous time without beginning and end. Here we provide an argument to show that eternity has to have a beginning but it could be endless. When we said that eternity does not have any end or beginning we mean that if it takes infinity to reach to eternal future or past if we start from now. It is simple to understand that it takes infinite amount of waiting from eternal past to reach now which is impossible hence we cannot have eternal past. This means that everything which is time bound has to have a beginning which start from finite past too.

The definition of eternity given renders eternity a function of time. This definition requires that all the properties of eternity be limited to and explained by only the properties of time (and space) e.g. begin, end, reach, wait, start, now.

I believe the opposite to be true, that is time is a function of eternity. If so, then eternity possesses all the properties of time and other properties as well e. g. omnipresence

Since no one (able or willing to post in this thread) has experienced eternity, neither case can be proven.