What is the religious definition of eternity?

[NoNeed4god]

How can they make claims if they do not exist?

The same way that you can make claims of the existence of something that doesn't exist.

 

[NoNeed4god]

Nope.

Immanent god-concepts are, by definition, NOT "outside the dimensions of time and space." The entire point of immanence is that the gods reside within time and space or synonymous with time and space.

If god IS within the dimensions of time and space, then why are we (humans) not able to detect him in any way? If god lives among us, it stands to reason that we would be able to pick him up with our senses( i.e. see or hear him), but we can't, why is that? Religious belief is based completely on faith. There is not a religious person on the planet that can demonstrate the existence of god to someone else with material evidence.

 

[NoNeed4god]

I don't think you would have stayed for 27 years if you never experienced anything spiritual... that's like saying you ate at a restaurant for 27 years, even though the food was bad

I did because it's not easy to just throw aside everything that you've always believed, no matter how irrational it may be. I grew up in a Christian house until I was 20 years old. i was expected to go to church every Sunday (although at the time I was a true believer and I didn't feel that my parents were FORCING me to do anything) I happily went because I truly believed that Jesus Christ was my personal savior. After I moved out of my parents house, I realized that I never had any personal experience with god like so many other Christians claimed to have. I remember trying to convince myself that I did, but I could no longer lie to myself. It took me about 5 years of to break out of religion all together. I ultimately came to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of god.

 

[Windwalker]

Here you go!



The God of the Bible is corporeal

(Topical Guide | G God, Body of—Corporeal Nature:Entry)

God, Body of—Corporeal Nature (see also Man, A Spirit Child of Heavenly Father; Man, Physical Creation of)
Gen. 1:27 (Moses 2:27) God created man in his own image
Gen. 5:1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him
Gen. 9:6 in the image of God made he man
Gen. 18:33 Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing
Gen. 32:30 I have seen God face to face
Ex. 24:10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet
Ex. 31:18 (Deut. 9:10) written with the finger of God
Ex. 33:11 Lord spake unto Moses face to face
Ex. 33:23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen
Num. 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth
Matt. 3:17 a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son
Matt. 4:4 every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God
Matt. 17:5 a voice out of the cloud
Luke 24:39 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have
John 14:9 he that hath seen me hath seen the Father
Acts 7:56 the Son of man standing on the right hand of God
Rom. 8:29 predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son
2 Cor. 4:4 Christ, who is the image of God
Philip. 2:6 who, being in the form of God
Philip. 3:21 our vile body ... fashioned like unto his glorious body
Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God
Heb. 1:3 the express image of his person
James 3:9 men which are made after the similitude of God
1 Jn. 3:2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him
Rev. 22:4 they shall see his face

Oh my goodness. You take these to mean a literal corporeal body? To be made in the image of God doesn't mean a bilateral body form complete with skeleton, blood vessels, nervous system, and the like! That's silliness. All of the above verses are simply anthropomorphic metaphors, such as saying, "I felt my God smiling down upon me today as the sun filled my soul". What, you felt actual lips of flesh squishing against your face, and a burning ball of hydrogen actually entered into you, literally? A literal reading of this would make you conclude this, wouldn't it. These are all simply a use of language to express how it impresses us in terms we are familiar with; the face of God, the hand of God, the heart of God, etc, etc, etc. Whoever reads these as literal truly has no understanding of the uses of language, and would find themselves utterly dismayed and lost a poetry reading, assuming the poet to be speaking of actual, corporeal things!

 

[NoNeed4god]

But again, if you are either unwilling or unable to see these evidences, such proofs are rejected as valid. It's not that that love isn't real, but that the person either can or cannot see them. They are even less tangible than some concrete 'evidence' such as a physical bone or something. And even then, with things like physical evidence people deny it because it's inconvenient or simply doesn't fit their idea of reality. How much less so something so very subjective as interpreting behaviors as indicative of love?

Do you see the point?


God is also spoken of within the natural world, and quite well detectable. To quote from the Bible, since your idea of God you reject appears to be derived from it, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament shows his handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, night unto night shows knowledge". That's the natural world. Another one, "the kingdom of God is within you", that's here and now, in this world. There are of course countless other references, but you see my point. Your idea of God is of course, not what others see as God. And so as you reject that idea, it's your idea you're rejecting.


Absolute nonsense. I don't need faith. And yes, God is demonstrated all the time in every moment of life. That you cannot see it, has nothing to do with anything being objective or not. Two people seeing the same thing, and yet they see something different.


Except to those who experience God directly. That's evidence. I have evidence of God every day.


You don't know what I believe, and calling it a system doesn't quite capture it. I would call it more an interpretation, or an evolving understanding, than any sort of belief system. In fact that term doesn't really fit at all.


Yes, from your lack of evidence it is appropriate to say you don't know.

1. I demonstrated ways that love can be tested and witnessed. There is not however any way to test the existence of god. If you disagree, then by all means, please show me how you can?

2. No, I do not see the point.

3. God cannot be detected. If people were able to detect him, the concept of faith would not be required. Like I said previously, if you disagree with me, then by all means, demonstrate god to me. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

4. Yep you do need faith. It says so multiple times in the bible. Are you cherry-picking the bible, or are you saying that the bible is lying? Hebrews 11:1..." Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see." I can give you other verses on the subject if you'd like.

5. That's great, demonstrate it to me? Like I said, I was a Christian for 27 years and I never once had a personal encounter with any god. Even if I thought i did (which I didn't) my experience would only be as good as what I could demonstrate to others (which is nothing) Your god may be real to you, but reality is only valid if it can be demonstrated and peer-reviewed. Unfortunately your god falls short on every level.

6. You're right, I don't know completely what's in your head, but like I said, if you can't demonstrate it to others with some sort of material reality, then I have no choice but to think that you're delusional.

7. I agree.

 

[chinu]

Every religious person that I've ever met describes the god of the bible as being eternal and that he is not bound by space, time, and matter. With that said, I would like to get the opinion of religious people (or non-religious) as to what exactly eternity is? This question is intended to get people to think critically. I will respond to your answer with a follow-up question that will further my reasoning behind the original question. All responses are appreciated! Thanks!

Eternity is which one knows after re-union with from where one/we all started this journey of life in the beginning. And till then, all discussions are just the part of this life-journey.

Now, do you think there's anything to respond ?

 

[NoNeed4god]

Ahhhh, no they don't. Matter and energy do not depend on time to exist.


Does Time Exist? | Quantum Weirdness
"However the fact remains that equations of space and time break down at certain points and time falls out of some of them as an unnecessary factor."

...Even the National Bureau of Standards admit they are “not measuring time, but only defining it“....

Is Time an Illusion?: Scientific American
"Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies"


Newsflash: Time May Not Exist | DiscoverMagazine.com
Newsflash: Time May Not Exist
Not to mention the question of which way it goes...


etc. etc. etc. ....

Ok, let me break this down for you. space has been observed to be expanding. It takes TIME for something to expand. Without TIME we would NOT have SPACE and without space, there would be NO matter. Matter has physical characteristics, it decays (which takes time) it has motion (which takes time) etc...

Thank for playing!

BTW, the sources you gave said nothing on the subject.

 

[NoNeed4god]

Yes - He's a real guy, we're made in His image and all that :yes: He's a person, with hands, feet, face, fingers etc. etc. a few people have seen Him.

If this is true, then show him to me. Post a photograph that you took with a camera? You're making a claim that he's a real person with physical characteristics, so by all means, back up your claim with material evidence?

 

[4consideration]

If god isn't composed of "something" i.e. particles, and doesn't have any mass, energy, etc, then how can anyone consider god to be anything more than a figment of their imagination? No disrespect to believers, these are just honest questions that are unanswered in my mind, that I'm sincerely curious about and that I'd like to get other people's feedback on!

(It's long. Sorry.)

It's possible that what I call "God" is a figment of my imagination, just like any belief (regardless of the subject) that one composes for ones-self, made up of connections of bits of data one holds to be "true" or accurate. I don't think anyone of us is physically or mentally capable of accumulating, categorizing and analyzing all of the possible data of all the subjects of all of existence for us to get a full and "TRUE" picture of existence as it really is, including all of the connections that may actually exist.

(Why I think there is a God, and how I arrived at where I am on the subject is a really long story. You may have reason to be glad you didn't ask. )

I consider experiential data to be worthy of consideration when looking at a subject. I don't think it is a better approach to exclude the experiential part of our perceptions in life and rely solely on external data collection -- as if such a thing actually exists without some measure of subjective input in what we call applicable data, and how it is collected and analyzed.

I think we are all exploring the subjects of life, according to the information we have and what we think to be relevant.

I think the bottom-line of what you mean is that you question if there is any reality to the existence of what I call "God". I think so, and this thinking so leads me to believe so. I am not using the close your eyes and insist it is so version of the word -- but something I hold to be true and act as though it is so -- version of "believe".

Part of the perspective that I hold of "God" is God as being undefinable, Infinite, without boundaries. Definitions, (by definition ) limit, establish boundaries, and establish what something is and, even if only by implication, what something is not. That which is so vast as to be able to include and hold a perspective of All that Is, is beyond my ability to fully grasp or define, and there is no place where that which includes All that Is -- is NOT.

I think I may perceive and explore aspects of "God" through various methods of exploring All that Is, yet I do not think that I have the ability to actually reduce (except in my own mind) God to a level of my total understanding of the subject. I tend to think of God in terms of certain qualities/power or attributes, like Love, Infinity, etc. and I think the exploration of life involves an experience of "God" -- even if I decided to never use that term. I also think that a connection with God can be experienced and possibly more readily perceived in stillness -- Being.

I can refer to scripture, like the Bible, on the subject of God and find much that I find to be valuable, without having to accept as true that which I do not understand in a way that is valuable -- nor do I have to confine, or reconcile, my every perception of life and the entire subject of God to that one book. I do not believe that which is capable of "creating" all that is could be defined or confined within a book.

I certainly don't think I have a full picture. That I don't have all the answers does not, for me, invalidate it as a perspective from which to view and experience life.

 

[Windwalker]

1. I demonstrated ways that love can be tested and witnessed. There is not however any way to test the existence of god. If you disagree, then by all means, please show me how you can?

2. No, I do not see the point.

Yes, and the same way you can witness the effect of someone experiencing love, rather than just mouthing the words "I love you", you can see that they genuinely are experiencing something tangible they call God, by seeing the effect of it. Someone experiencing what they call God, which is called that because it is distinct from other things such as thoughts and emotions and categorically fits into the "absolute" domain, will in fact demonstrate that in their lives, as opposed to someone who merely "believes", mouthing those words without any tangible reality to the words.

In the same way we can verify that what some claims as love is in fact a real experience for them, we can also see a particular sort of 'fruit' borne by experiencing God. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their stupid logic arguments trying to show how God exists like a Yeti somewhere hidden up in the Himalayas.

3. God cannot be detected. If people were able to detect him, the concept of faith would not be required. Like I said previously, if you disagree with me, then by all means, demonstrate god to me. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

There is something radically different that is experienced in my life beyond emotions, beyond cognition, beyond beliefs, which has a profound life-changing effect upon me which alone is responsible for me having a greater sense of connection to my own being, to the world around me, to others, etc, which improves the quality of my life beyond just happy thoughts, good feelings, etc. Those around me see a dramatic effect. I see and know and experience a dramatic effect.

To me, this is a clear demonstration that "something" is happening that is dramatically distinct from regular mind and emotions. And this is but one example. But of course, none of this is meant to support any theological idea of what God is, and in no way would I intend it to say that. I don't believe that myself. I do not believe this means that the image of God presented in any religious texts literally describes God. I do not believe anyone can define what God is, and it remain God.

4. Yep you do need faith. It says so multiple times in the bible. Are you cherry-picking the bible, or are you saying that the bible is lying? Hebrews 11:1..." Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see." I can give you other verses on the subject if you'd like.

Well, herein lays your problem. You are taking a literal reading of the Bible as to what defines what God is. You reject, as I said before, your understanding of God. That's not the same as rejecting God.

In reality, yes, one can experience God through faith. I understand faith to be an intuition of something not yet realized "face to face" (metaphorical use of that expression there, BTW). Someone can experience God, through faith. It brings them into an opening of what God is, into themselves through the act of leaning into that intuition, trusting it, and opening to it. Then, once one enters into that fully which was intuited, faith is replaced by experience. Intuition, or faith, is now realized in direct awareness, direct experience. This is the mystical union, this is realization, this is apprehension. And all of this is also mentioned in the Bible too, so no cherry picking going on here with me. Through faith, we entered into God and then know God, firsthand.

As I said, I don't need faith to know God exists. I know God exists through firsthand experience. But don't mistake my understanding of what God is with your understanding from a literal reading of the Bible.

5. That's great, demonstrate it to me?

You know how I said before that using the analogy of demonstrating love, that even though someone may demonstrate it for years and years, that does not mean that someone can see it until something within them shifts in order for them to see it? That one day you wake up and say, "Oh my god, it was there all along, right there in front of me!"? That's the same thing with God. It's like waking up to see what was never not there, and the whole time it was simply you not seeing it. That is exactly what it is like.

I cannot show you what is already shown. You have to see it.

Like I said, I was a Christian for 27 years and I never once had a personal encounter with any god. Even if I thought i did (which I didn't) my experience would only be as good as what I could demonstrate to others (which is nothing)

First, what were you looking for? Your idea of God? Then you were looking for your idea, and not God. Secondly, your experience would be valid if it demonstrated it to yourself, not to others. It is an inner awakening, and then through that awakening, you are changed, and you then become something different. Your not showing God as an object, like a Yeti captured and put into a cage for critical examination by scientists in a lab. You are showing yourself affected by the experience of something real in your life, not imaginary.

Your god may be real to you, but reality is only valid if it can be demonstrated and peer-reviewed.

Forgive me, but this is complete crap. This is really naive and incorrect understanding of the scientific method applied to areas of life beyond mere analysis of the material world. It cannot be applied to love. It cannot be applied to ideals. It cannot be applied to values. It cannot be applied to emotions. It cannot be applied to interpretive structures of culture. And so on. Peer review?

Even so, you in fact can have some "peer review" going on in the mystical and spiritual domains of human experience. But it has to be among those who are qualified to be peers in that field. In the same way a non-scientist cannot peer review a physicist's research, a non-mystic cannot peer review a mystic's apprehension of the divine. In fact, for someone with no experience of God to say to a mystic, "You're delusional", is no different whatsoever than a believer in a Young Earth Creation saying to a qualified biologist, "You're delusional", because his actual experience working in that field as a specialist shows him otherwise. The delusion resides with the cynic, not the specialist. Since you brought up peer review, than it would need to be applied properly, by actual peers.

Unfortunately your god falls short on every level.

And not knowing what that is, you can make this claim? No, you are speaking of your conceptions of God. Not what I believe or claim.

6. You're right, I don't know completely what's in your head, but like I said, if you can't demonstrate it to others with some sort of material reality, then I have no choice but to think that you're delusional.

It can be demonstrated materially. My life. My actions. The products of those actions. It begins within first, and moves without. In other words it manifests through the material, while it itself is not the material. Same with love.

 

[BSM1]

Every religious person that I've ever met describes the god of the bible as being eternal and that he is not bound by space, time, and matter. With that said, I would like to get the opinion of religious people (or non-religious) as to what exactly eternity is? This question is intended to get people to think critically. I will respond to your answer with a follow-up question that will further my reasoning behind the original question. All responses are appreciated! Thanks!

I know I'm getting in on this one late but from the answers so far it is obvious that humans, with their linear thinking, have a hard time describing and comprehending eternity. Let's just say eternity is the cessation of opposites until there is no cessation. We are now living in the "no cessation of opposites" time frame.

 

[George-ananda]

Every religious person that I've ever met describes the god of the bible as being eternal and that he is not bound by space, time, and matter. With that said, I would like to get the opinion of religious people (or non-religious) as to what exactly eternity is? This question is intended to get people to think critically. I will respond to your answer with a follow-up question that will further my reasoning behind the original question. All responses are appreciated! Thanks!

Well, I'll come at this question from my Eastern (Indian) Advaita perspective.

Brahman alone is eternal if it even makes sense to call Brahman eternal as time is just something that exists from our limited perspective. Our universe exists as a great thought-form of Brahman and exists for an incredible length of time from our perspective but eventually returns to Brahman. So even the physical universe as we think of it has an end and is not eternal.

I think some of the philosophical difficulties you may be getting at result from the simplified thinking that God exists in time like we believe we do.

 

[nazz]

I thought I made it clear in my previous response that I didn't, which is part of the reason why I left religion.

It wasn't clear to me because you said:

I am all of those things and I was a dedicated Christian for 27 years of my life. I was humble, I repented, asked for god to forgive me of my sins. went to church every Sunday, I believed every bit as much as the next guy and yet for the entire 27 years I never seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted any god.

This does not necessarily mean that you did not experience something you thought was a god. Most atheists I've queried about this say they did have experiences but they have since explained them away.

 

[Katzpur]

"For a spirit hath not (does not) flesh and bones, as ye see me have....."

I am not following you. Now, unless I'm getting a mixed up please explain where in that verse you get the idea that GOD the creator of all things is said to have flesh and bone? Unless you are saying God and Jesus are the same.

First of all, this particular reference is to Jesus Christ, who most definitely did have a body of flesh and bone. This verse really doesn't say anything at all about God the Father. It is, however, a pretty convincing argument against the notion that the Father and the Son are part of a single substance. A substance is either corporeal or non-corporeal -- not both.

Secondly (and not quite as important to this particular discussion), the Bible says that Jesus Christ was the Creator of all things, was acting under His Father's direction. For this reason, it could be argued that the Father was the Creator or that the Son was.

Lastly, and more important, the fact that the Bible states that "God is spirit" doesn't preclude Him having a corporeal body. Take these two commonly accepted Christian beliefs:

A = Jesus Christ is God.
B = God is spirit (and has no body).

Since Jesus Christ pointed out to His Apostles following His Resurrection that He did, in fact, have a body of flesh and bones, a Trinitarian would have to conclude that He could therefore not be God. I don't know of a single Trinitarian who would say that, necessitating the reinterpretation of either one or both of my premises (A and B). In other words, A and B, as they are generally understood, cannot both be true statements.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormons are polytheists, basically. They think that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different gods. They think that the Father was originally a human from another planet who gained godhood and who rules over Earth. They want to follow in his footsteps and become gods of other planets, themselves. They don't believe that he is the creator of the universe, as I understand it. They think that humans existed before being born, are the children of the Father and their goddess, the Heavenly Mother, and that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Oh, and they also believe that the Father had actual sex with Mary.

Although they like to fancy themselves as restoring original Christianity, there is no proof that the early Church believed any of those things and that Joe Smith, and later "prophets", didn't make it all up.

You know, there was a time when I would have gone to the trouble of addressing each one of these idiotic statements. Having already done so dozens upon dozens of times in the past, I'm past the point of wanting to encouraging idiocy. Ignorance of this magnitude doesn't even deserve a response. (Never mind the fact that nothing you've said has anything at all to do with the OP.)

 

[idea]

I did because it's not easy to just throw aside everything that you've always believed, no matter how irrational it may be. I grew up in a Christian house until I was 20 years old. i was expected to go to church every Sunday (although at the time I was a true believer and I didn't feel that my parents were FORCING me to do anything) I happily went because I truly believed that Jesus Christ was my personal savior. After I moved out of my parents house, I realized that I never had any personal experience with god like so many other Christians claimed to have. I remember trying to convince myself that I did, but I could no longer lie to myself. It took me about 5 years of to break out of religion all together. I ultimately came to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of god.

Well, you know what they say about borrowed light... the transition between having faith in a community/family/friends, and finding your own personal faith is a long journey, but a worth-while one. It's not a matter of proving anything, or convincing yourself of anything - in the end, it is a personal choice. Not "seeing is believing" but "believing is seeing", we all choose what to see, and it usually takes time on both sides of the fence before one can properly make an informed choice on which side they would like to live on. Blessing to you on your journey!

 

[idea]

You know, there was a time when I would have gone to the trouble of addressing each one of these idiotic statements. Having already done so dozens upon dozens of times in the past, I'm past the point of wanting to encouraging idiocy. Ignorance of this magnitude doesn't even deserve a response. (Never mind the fact that nothing you've said has anything at all to do with the OP.)

Don't you just have a library you can cut-n-paste from? LOL, the same things do come up over and over again, nothing new under the sun.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You know, there was a time when I would have gone to the trouble of addressing each one of these idiotic statements. Having already done so dozens upon dozens of times in the past, I'm past the point of wanting to encouraging idiocy. Ignorance of this magnitude doesn't even deserve a response. (Never mind the fact that nothing you've said has anything at all to do with the OP.)

Why don't you have a go at it? I'd like to see you try.

 

[idea]

Why don't you have a go at it? I'd like to see you try.

LOL, only if you can explain the inquisition, crusades, indulgences ... I already posted some fair links

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

LOL, only if you can explain the inquisition, crusades, indulgences ... I already posted some fair links

I saw. And here's some links for you:
Is Mormonism polytheistic? | Catholic Answers
God Has No Body | Catholic Answers