Is the world unchanging or changing?

[Ben_Sinner]

In regards to Buddhism, they try to justify rebirth, even though there is no such thing as a soul. I remember reading a poster use this point.

*There is no unchanging eternal core, no soul. Greatly simplifying things, Christianity sees the world as essentially unchanging with a veneer of apparent change laid over it. Buddhism sees the reverse; the world is essentially changing with a veneer of apparent stasis laid over it…if your light a candle with another candle, is it the same flame, or not the same flame?
*

My question is, as Christians, how can we prove that an unchanging universe is the correct outlook instead of an always-changing one?

 

[Crusaderbear]

Eternal life doesn’t neccessarily mean unchanging…on earth there is constant physical change…not sure I grasp your question.

 

[seagal]

What do you mean by an unchanging universe? Physically? Spiritually? Existentially? Physically of course it’s changing all the time, constantly in motion. Spiritually, I think it’s changing as well. After Adam and Eve were expelled, man gradually forgot about God. His dealings with first Noah, then Abraham, Moses, and finally Jesus shows a slow unveiling of his mystery. Admittedly I don’t know much about Buddhism, but as a Christian I would say the universe, the world, and humanity are always changing.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

.if your light a candle with another candle, is it the same flame, or not the same flame?

I found questions like that a lot more ponder-worthy before I found out what fire is from the perspective of physics.

My question is, as Christians, how can we prove that an unchanging universe is the correct outlook instead of an always-changing one?

You’ll have to narrow down what you mean when you say “unchanging”. What aspects of the Universe don’t change? And are you sure that these aspects don’t change?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

What I mean by ‘unchanging’ is nothing has a true identity. It is always changing from one thing to the other. An example used to try to justify this is a person will have a different personality now than he would when he was a child.

This was a way a Buddhist would try to justify re-birth and reincarnation, while at the same time, rejecting the existence of a soul.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

In regards to Buddhism, they try to justify rebirth, even though there is no such thing as a soul. I remember reading a poster use this point.

*There is no unchanging eternal core, no soul. Greatly simplifying things, Christianity sees the world as essentially unchanging with a veneer of apparent change laid over it. Buddhism sees the reverse; the world is essentially changing with a veneer of apparent stasis laid over it…if your light a candle with another candle, is it the same flame, or not the same flame?
*

My question is, as Christians, how can we prove that an unchanging universe is the correct outlook instead of an always-changing one?

Is one day the same as another? Is one moment? The senses burn with an ever-changing world. Prove to me that there is no change.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Of course it always changing. Otherwise you’d still be in diapers! We are meant to grow here on earth into beings fit for entry into heaven.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

One thing I also forgot to mention

I remember a Buddhist apologist cite a science article that said the cells from our body from when we are an infant die off and and turn to a completely different form of cells when we are an adult.

They use this as proof that no one remains the same person, we literally have different body/personalities throughout life…thus that is proof that we gave no true identity/soul…just a passing phase of different changes that can change into something else (rebirth) even after we die

I was wondering how we as Catholics treat this reasoning.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

They use this as proof that no one remains the same person, we literally have different body/personalities throughout life…thus that is proof that we gave no true identity/soul…just a passing phase of different changes that can change into something else (rebirth) even after we die

I was wondering how we as Catholics treat this reasoning.

I’ve encountered that before. It’s not specific to Buddhism (though I understand someone has employed it for Buddhism). I can’t remember the name of what this concept is called, but it has something to do with Continuity and Personal Identity.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

One thing I also forgot to mention

I remember a Buddhist apologist cite a science article that said the cells from our body from when we are an infant die off and and turn to a completely different form of cells when we are an adult.

They use this as proof that no one remains the same person, we literally have different body/personalities throughout life…thus that is proof that we gave no true identity/soul…just a passing phase of different changes that can change into something else (rebirth) even after we die

I was wondering how we as Catholics treat this reasoning.

But it doesn’t prove it. Because in a custard the milk and eggs turn from liquid to solid doesn’t prove there is no sugar in it.

Just as the sugar comes to us through solidified milk and eggs, the maturing personality comes to us through an ageing body.

In your original quote - I don’t know where from - it says Christianity says the universe doesn’t change: but Christianity doesn’t say that anywhere.

Did you expect that the information claimed in the quote wasn’t so or does it come as a surprise?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I think what the quote was trying to say is that there are two schools of thought

Christian thought: One unified soul having frequent changes in itself (such as the human turning from an infant to an adult), but the same ‘soul’ remains in that person.

Pro-Reincarnation/Rebirth thought: The changes from infant to adult are literally two different ‘persons’ with no connection whatsoever to the other, thus trying to prove rebirth.

Thats what I was trying question out of the quote.

How can we know that the Christian thought is the correct one out of the two?