Can science now say how it could be that God is eternal, if It exists.

[ThePainefulTruth]

That can be true, but you cannot say its true until it is true, you can believe in any think you like, but again its not true until it is true, and that's the tooth lol.

Even if you are a minority of one, the Truth is the Truth.

So would it be fair, then, to say that your intended meaning of "God is eternal" could also be expressed by saying "that which is true does not vary with respect to time"?

The POSSIBILITY that if God exists, then It could possibly be eternal, yes.

If this is your position, then you're effectively arguing that the Bible and all other "revealed texts" are false

Bingo!

...or at least completely made up (since if they were true and their claims were justified, this would be evidence of God).

... so why worry about what they say?

Because Truth is God. We either stand for Truth, or allow lies to predominate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The POSSIBILITY that if God exists, then It could possibly be eternal, yes.

But why would that be the case? Isn't it obvious that the truth changes all the time? There are things that are true now that weren't true yesterday and vice versa. In what sense do you think that "the Truth" might be "eternal"?

 

[psychoslice]

Even if you are a minority of one, the Truth is the Truth.



The POSSIBILITY that if God exists, then It could possibly be eternal, yes.



Bingo!



Because Truth is God. We either stand for Truth, or allow lies to predominate.

I don't agree, and I cannot see how you can say that, just because someone believes in whatever, doesn't make it truth, anyone would know that.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But why would that be the case? Isn't it obvious that the truth changes all the time? There are things that are true now that weren't true yesterday and vice versa. In what sense do you think that "the Truth" might be "eternal"?

How did you determine that I'm saying it would be the case? I'm said......if......then.....possibly.

I don't agree, and I cannot see how you can say that, just because someone believes in whatever, doesn't make it truth, anyone would know that.

How do you conclude that I'm saying that belief in any way determines Truth? Truth validates belief depending on the evidence on which a belief is based. If there is no evidence supporting a belief, then any correlation between said belief and the Truth would not exist.

 

[psychoslice]

How did you determine that I'm saying it would be the case? I'm said......if......then.....possibly.



How do you conclude that I'm saying that belief in any way determines Truth? Truth validates belief depending on the evidence on which a belief is based. If there is no evidence supporting a belief, then any correlation between said belief and the Truth would not exist.

Yes if you have evidence that can be proven, if you cannot prove it, then that so called evidence is worth nothing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...the Truth would not exist.

What exactly do you mean by "Truth"?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes if you have evidence that can be proven, if you cannot prove it, then that so called evidence is worth nothing.

So we have evidence that gravity always works. But if we can't prove that it does or how it does it, that evidence is worthless. Walked off any cliffs lately?

Evidence, besides hearsay, is a circumstance that indicates a possible Truth. There is visible evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth and less intuitive evidence that the Earth rotates making the Sun appear to move across the sky. The Truth of the matter is determined by gathering further evidence that corroborates one or the other (or another) possibility. Same thing for a human observer appearing to affect the outcome of quantum transaction, re: Schrödinger's cat.

What exactly do you mean by "Truth"?

Everything that exists, including imagination (as long as we refer to it as that), except lies (which are the intentional avoidance or denial of Truth), which only self-aware sentient beings can fabricate. Animals are innocent. Aspects of Truth are (at least): knowledge, justice, love and beauty/art--from the totally objective, blended through to the totally subjective, respectively. Above all, Truth = God, wherever that leads, whether that Truth is a sentient super-spirit being God, or just the ultimate ideal worthy of pursuit god--as opposed to the gods of money, power, sex, fame etc..

You asked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How did you determine that I'm saying it would be the case? I'm said......if......then.....possibly.

I think we're talking past each other. My point is that if all you really mean by "God" is "truth", then you don't even need to consider quantum physics or anything esoteric: the set of facts that are true (which is the only way I can interpret "truth" that makes sense in this context) is different now than it was in the past. It isn't "eternal" or "timeless".

When we recognize this, we have the answer to your question: is it possible that truth is eternal? No, because we know that it isn't eternal.

Now... this is all if we take what you're saying at face value and interpret "God" as equivalent to "truth". If you mean something else by the term (e.g. "the entity that created the universe"), then we need to reconsider our approach.

I suspect that there's more to your position than you're letting on, since all that stuff about quantum physics suggests that you're talking about something other than merely "truth".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I understand what you say and mostly agree with the logic and reason you provide...except there is one thing that you miss. In pantheism, this 'something that exists as a brute fact'....is labeled 'God'....there is nothing external to it....it merely is all that is...known and unknown. I am not trying to conflate religion and science....just to point out that both ways have the 'something that exists as a brute fact' as their focus...science involves learning about the physical world...religion involves transcending the physical world..

I understand that, but the question for me is always this: if what you mean is "all that is," why not say that? What is the purpose of giving it what is clearly understood to be a personal name, implying a very great deal about "all that is" for which there is no shred of evidence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand what you say and mostly agree with the logic and reason you provide...except there is one thing that you miss. In pantheism, this 'something that exists as a brute fact'....is labeled 'God'....there is nothing external to it....it merely is all that is...known and unknown. I am not trying to conflate religion and science....just to point out that both ways have the 'something that exists as a brute fact' as their focus...science involves learning about the physical world...religion involves transcending the physical world..

What's the difference between "something that exists as a brute fact" and "something that exists"?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What exactly do you mean by "Truth"?

Can hardly wait for the answers! This "objectification" of "Truth" that seems to pervade these discussions always leaves me wondering. It has always been my view that truth is nothing more than another descriptive word, a way of describing whether a statement of any kinds corresponds to the way things actually are.

What it is not, however, is a self-describing Thing, the way that it is too often used here, and you can always tell when people are doing it -- when the capitalize "Truth."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What's the difference between "something that exists as a brute fact" and "something that exists"?

The latter might at any moment cease to exist. My life, for example, or a star that goes nova.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I understand that, but the question for me is always this: if what you mean is "all that is," why not say that? What is the purpose of giving it what is clearly understood to be a personal name, implying a very great deal about "all that is" for which there is no shred of evidence?

Good question..and one that I am pleased you asked.. Serious religious aspirants understand that the concept "all that is" implies a certain ignorance.....for the cosmos (aka God in pantheism) is an indivisible one... The apparent multiplicity (maya) arises naturally due to the human mind's self identification with the body in time and space....and whose sensory input from "all that is" is primitive and severely limited wrt apprehending the totality of the cosmos....sensing something less than 0.0000000001% of the whole of the vibrations of nature. Hence religions are ahead of the game and give the non-dual cosmic existence a simple name according to the culture...God...Tao...Brahman...etc...

Now if you think that each of 'all' that is perceived and conceived by the mortal mind exists as real things separate from each other, then say so and we can take it from there....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What's the difference between "something that exists as a brute fact" and "something that exists"?

I see Evangelicalhumanist has responded to your question as I was only quoting him....and I agree with his response..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Can hardly wait for the answers! This "objectification" of "Truth" that seems to pervade these discussions always leaves me wondering. It has always been my view that truth is nothing more than another descriptive word, a way of describing whether a statement of any kinds corresponds to the way things actually are.
What it is not, however, is a self-describing Thing, the way that it is too often used here, and you can always tell when people are doing it -- when the capitalize "Truth."

I agree, and I am always dubious when people make proper nouns of words by starting them with a capital letter. Like when people talk about "Reality".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Serious religious aspirants understand that the concept "all that is" implies a certain ignorance.....for the cosmos (aka God in pantheism) is an indivisible one... The apparent multiplicity (maya) arises naturally due to the human mind's self identification with the body in time and space....and whose sensory input from "all that is" is primitive and severely limited wrt apprehending the totality of the cosmos....sensing something less than 0.0000000001% of the whole of the vibrations of nature. Hence religions are ahead of the game and give the non-dual cosmic existence a simple name according to the culture...God...Tao...Brahman...etc...

So you start by saying "all that is" implies a certain ignorance ( encouraging ), but you then list a load of religious beliefs about "all that is". Ironic!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think we're talking past each other. My point is that if all you really mean by "God" is "truth", then you don't even need to consider quantum physics or anything esoteric: the set of facts that are true (which is the only way I can interpret "truth" that makes sense in this context) is different now than it was in the past. It isn't "eternal" or "timeless".

When we recognize this, we have the answer to your question: is it possible that truth is eternal? No, because we know that it isn't eternal.

We only know that the universe had a beginning, but we don't know if it came to be "within" or in parallel with some associated/external ether that could well be timeless. In fact, it could be the timeless Quantumland I've been referring to. And we don't know if the unity of this overall Oneness has an associated consciousness which would bring to mind something of a traditional, omnipotent God.

I suspect that there's more to your position than you're letting on, since all that stuff about quantum physics suggests that you're talking about something other than merely "truth".

All I can do is disagree. I don't have an unstated agenda and I don't understand how quantum physics could be anything other than part, or even the foundation of, the one, whole Truth.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good question..and one that I am pleased you asked.. Serious religious aspirants understand that the concept "all that is" implies a certain ignorance.....for the cosmos (aka God in pantheism) is an indivisible one... The apparent multiplicity (maya) arises naturally due to the human mind's self identification with the body in time and space....and whose sensory input from "all that is" is primitive and severely limited wrt apprehending the totality of the cosmos....sensing something less than 0.0000000001% of the whole of the vibrations of nature. Hence religions are ahead of the game and give the non-dual cosmic existence a simple name according to the culture...God...Tao...Brahman...etc...

Now if you think that each of 'all' that is perceived and conceived by the mortal mind exists as real things separate from each other, then say so and we can take it from there....

Well, if I have a jar of pennies, each penny in it, while part of many collections (the set of pennies in my jar, the set of pennies minted in Canada, the set of all objects made of copper), each is also, in and of itself, a penny. It is not separate from the jar of pennies right now, but it could be by the simple expedient of removing it from the jar. It could be melted down and modified into a tiny sculpture, in which case it would now be part of any number of different collections (sculptures, but staying in the set of all objects made of copper).

I`m interested that you refer to that which is "perceived and conceived by the mortal mind," which for many new-age types suggests that fantasy that nothing really exists, that we make up the entire story, which I heartily disagree with. It is my view that I do not imagine the penny (or the jar of pennies) into existence. They have an objective reality of their own, although I may perceive that reality differently than, say, a fruit fly crawling on its surface, but the reality remains. How I perceive (versus how the fruit fly perceives) is an integral part of my reality, but the combination of the reality of the penny, and the reality of my perceptive capabilities, are the crux of my reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you start by saying "all that is" implies a certain ignorance ( encouraging ), but you then list a load of religious beliefs about "all that is". Ironic!

Your reading comprehension is poor......the context was Evangelicalhumanist asking me why use a religious name for "all that is"...what is wrong with just staying with "all that is"! The answer is that "all" implies many...and the many are merely aspects of one cosmos.. the cosmos is one, ie.. non-dual...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, if I have a jar of pennies, each penny in it, while part of many collections (the set of pennies in my jar, the set of pennies minted in Canada, the set of all objects made of copper), each is also, in and of itself, a penny. It is not separate from the jar of pennies right now, but it could be by the simple expedient of removing it from the jar. It could be melted down and modified into a tiny sculpture, in which case it would now be part of any number of different collections (sculptures, but staying in the set of all objects made of copper).

I`m interested that you refer to that which is "perceived and conceived by the mortal mind," which for many new-age types suggests that fantasy that nothing really exists, that we make up the entire story, which I heartily disagree with. It is my view that I do not imagine the penny (or the jar of pennies) into existence. They have an objective reality of their own, although I may perceive that reality differently than, say, a fruit fly crawling on its surface, but the reality remains. How I perceive (versus how the fruit fly perceives) is an integral part of my reality, but the combination of the reality of the penny, and the reality of my perceptive capabilities, are the crux of my reality.

I have no idea how the analogy of copper pennies in a jar...etc...has any bearing on what I posted. I understand we were talking about the one cosmos that is all.. are you meaning to imply that the jar of pennies is analogous to the one cosmos that is all... and the pennies are the 'all'? If so....it is an improper analogy as the jar and the pennies are two different things....iow..whereas the cosmos is actually constituted of the 'all', the jar is glass is not constituted of copper..

You clearly did not understand what was said to you wrt human perceptions being unable to apprehend the oneness of the cosmos.. Please understand that everything you conceive of in the mind is a mental construct that represents some real aspect external to it....it is of course not that actual aspect, but merely a symbol that stands for that actual aspect.. The real is forever on the other side of the concept...so when it comes to the one cosmos that is constituted of, so far as human perceptions are concerned, infinite aspects...it could never be apprehended by the human conceptual mind for even if it could integrate an infinite numbers of concepts....it would still be just a mental construct to represent the real one cosmos. So in religious practice, we still the mind so that it is free from thought....and all that is left is reality itself...not a conception of reality... I appreciate that if you are not familiar with the non-dual nature of existence, and the way to apprehend it.....then you will probably not understand this at first...but suffice to say at this stage....you will never understand using your conceptual mind...