Eternity has to have a beginning but it can be endless

[hasantas]

We use beginning and end for events in time. Could you please define what do you mean with beginning and end?

Bahman, there is one thing in all your threads that you confuse the material with eternal. The mind cannot comprehend eternity and cannot deliberate it. That is the unique thing that the mind cannot find the answer of. Because the mind will always investigate and evaluate with material laws. The mind cannot evaluate beyond of time and space. Do not ask “what is the beyond of time”. Nobody can know except God. If you insist on that then you may lose faith.

 

[Aloysium]

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.

Eternity belongs to God. There is no eternity outside His vision; there is what He has created, heavenly and in time and space.

We can reduce everything into some sort of summary, doing great disservice to what is, was and will be, and imagine that totality to comprise what it means to be eternal.
The universe is not eternal however, having had a beginning and an end.
God is eternal as the Source of time and thereby encompassing and within all time.

We can have a sense of the eternal right here and now, where we meet God in the rality of this moment which is given to us through His loving grace.
The past that was, likewise existed, connected to its Source.
Right here and now, eternity meets time.
Now has no boundaries; it cannot be said to last any amount of time and has no beginning or end.
Now just is.
And, it is our connection to God; this is where the encounter occurs, always has and always will.
Within our finite experience, with its limited attention span and capacity to stay focussed and not distracted by the world, it remains possible to know God and eternity.

 

[Bahman]

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.

I think I defined eternity and was clear with my conclusion. You can define it something else of course.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, there is one thing in all your threads that you confuse the material with eternal. The mind cannot comprehend eternity and cannot deliberate it. That is the unique thing that the mind cannot find the answer of. Because the mind will always investigate and evaluate with material laws. The mind cannot evaluate beyond of time and space. Do not ask “what is the beyond of time”. Nobody can know except God. If you insist on that then you may lose faith.

I don’t understand how your comment is related to mine. All I am saying that eternity as it is defined has a beginning.

 

[hasantas]

I don’t understand how your comment is related to mine. All I am saying that eternity as it is defined has a beginning.

Eternity has not a beginning or end and you cannot understand that by logic. Logic or mind is for materials.

 

[Aloysium]

I think I defined eternity and was clear with my conclusion. You can define it something else of course.

When the definition or initial assumption is incorrect, the conclusion Is not consistent with reality. That’s how a lot of statistics works. The conclusion you have as your OP is false. Therefore you have to rework your understanding of eternity.

 

[Bahman]

Eternity has not a beginning or end and you cannot understand that by logic. Logic or mind is for materials.

This is the definition eternity. (1) corresponds to my definition.

1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
2. The state or quality of being eternal.

a. The timeless state following death.
b. The afterlife; immortality.

 

[Bahman]

When the definition or initial assumption is incorrect, the conclusion Is not consistent with reality. That’s how a lot of statistics works. The conclusion you have as your OP is false. Therefore you have to rework your understanding of eternity.

This is definition from a dictionary. (1) corresponds to my definition.

e·ter·ni·ty

1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
2. The state or quality of being eternal.

a. The timeless state following death.
b. The afterlife; immortality.

 

[o_mlly]

I think I defined eternity and was clear with my conclusion. You can define it something else of course.

Since this is a Philosophy forum, ought not the philosophical definition of “eternity” be most appropriate?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

“Timelessness” and “everlasting” are the primary properties of eternity which are not properties of things in time or time itself.

 

[Aloysium]

This is definition from a dictionary. (1) corresponds to my definition. . . 1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time. . .

I believe some clarification is in order.
I would refer you to the title of this thread you initiated.
Your definition of eternity holds that it has no beginning and you are arguing that it does.
I would agree with you that time has to have, since it does have, a beginning and possibly, but not necessarily, no end.

 

[Bahman]

Since this is a Philosophy forum, ought not the philosophical definition of “eternity” be most appropriate?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/

“Timelessness” and “everlasting” are the primary properties of eternity which are not properties of things in time or time itself.

I think you need to read the section about temporalsim in the article you cited.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . temporalism . . .

I interpret this vague reference as meaning that you do not believe in the existence of eternity as it is commonly understood, but hold that there is only time.

Ok.

Since pretty much every other poster does not share your belief and has a more encompassing definition of eternity than simply meaning all time, you should qualify your remarks. We are not talking about the same thing.

The title of this thread essentially merely states that time had a beginning.
Fair enough, there’s likely to be little if any discussion on the matter save for one or two other individuals on this forum.

Your argument rephrased boils down to: since time, is not endless at least by its having a beginning, eternity does not exist.
The argument, is founded on the belief that is alluded to in your definition. So, you are simply restating, as is everyone else what is considered true.
There being no common meeting point, the discussion becomes a futile rehashing of the same ideas.

 

[hasantas]

This is the definition eternity. (1) corresponds to my definition.

1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
2. The state or quality of being eternal.

a. The timeless state following death.
b. The afterlife; immortality.

Everything is created by God and God do not sent anything into absence.

If something has a beginning but has no end then it cannot be called eternal. Everything can stay in presence with power of God. Power of God will manifest for ever so material can go on. That presence is not belong to creatures but it is supported by power of God. So being part of eternity with no end is belong to eternity of God. It is manifestation of God. God is eternal so manifestation of God could be eterna(without end.)

 

[o_mlly]

I think you need to read the section about temporalsim in the article you cited.

“7.2 Temporalism … But the theory of relativity is generally taken to support the idea that the universe is a 4-dimensional space-time block, that time is a matter of perspective and that an ideal knower outside the universe would observe it ‘all at once’. …”

A knower outside the universe is by definition outside time, that is the knower is in eternity. Since eternity has all the properties of time and time does not have all the properties of eternity, then time is a function of eternity.

Did I miss something? Can you point to the ideas in “7.2 Temporalism” that support a notion that eternity is a function of time?

 

[Bahman]

I believe some clarification is in order.
I would refer you to the title of this thread you initiated.
Your definition of eternity holds that it has no beginning and you are arguing that it does.
I would agree with you that time has to have, since it does have, a beginning and possibly, but not necessarily, no end.

Cool. So we are at the same page.

 

[Bahman]

I interpret this vague reference as meaning that you do not believe in the existence of eternity as it is commonly understood, but hold that there is only time.

Ok.

Since pretty much every other poster does not share your belief and has a more encompassing definition of eternity than simply meaning all time, you should qualify your remarks. We are not talking about the same thing.

The title of this thread essentially merely states that time had a beginning.
Fair enough, there’s likely to be little if any discussion on the matter save for one or two other individuals on this forum.

Your argument rephrased boils down to: since time, is not endless at least by its having a beginning, eternity does not exist.
The argument, is founded on the belief that is alluded to in your definition. So, you are simply restating, as is everyone else what is considered true.
There being no common meeting point, the discussion becomes a futile rehashing of the same ideas.

To be clear, I showed one of definition of eternity, temporalism, is wrong.

 

[Bahman]

Everything is created by God and God do not sent anything into absence.

If something has a beginning but has no end then it cannot be called eternal. Everything can stay in presence with power of God. Power of God will manifest for ever so material can go on. That presence is not belong to creatures but it is supported by power of God. So being part of eternity with no end is belong to eternity of God. It is manifestation of God. God is eternal so manifestation of God could be eterna(without end.)

I think you need to read the section temporalism in this article. You then can understand my argument.

 

[Bahman]

“7.2 Temporalism … But the theory of relativity is generally taken to support the idea that the universe is a 4-dimensional space-time block, that time is a matter of perspective and that an ideal knower outside the universe would observe it ‘all at once’. …”

A knower outside the universe is by definition outside time, that is the knower is in eternity. Since eternity has all the properties of time and time does not have all the properties of eternity, then time is a function of eternity.

Did I miss something? Can you point to the ideas in “7.2 Temporalism” that support a notion that eternity is a function of time?

I think the temporalism is another definition of eternity. Correct? My argument shows that temporalism cannot be correct or put it in softer way, eternity has a beginning.

 

[Aloysium]

Your definition of eternity differs from that of other posters.
If eternity were merely the totality of time, and since time has a beginning, then eternity (as you have defined it) would have a beginning.
Eternity as an aspect of God’s nature has no beginning or end, and also includes all time.

 

[Bahman]

Your definition of eternity differs from that of other posters.
If eternity were merely the totality of time, and since time has a beginning, then eternity (as you have defined it) would have a beginning.
Eternity as an aspect of God’s nature has no beginning or end, and also includes all time.

So God cannot be completely eternal (my definition).