Theological question

[Brandon]

Isn't the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, as is commonly described, a contradiction in terms?

God, according to most believers, has anthropomorphic qualities. He has a personality; He has feelings. However, He is also said to be omniscient, omnipotent, and pure spirit.

Isn't emotion incompatible with "godly" qualities, though? Wouldn't it require both a physical body and a certain weakness of character? Isn't it ridiculous to think that a "perfect" being could become angry? Sad?

[O71394658]

The concept of God and his emotions may or may not be true. The simple fact of the matter is, there is no other way in which to describe him. We tend to associate actions with emotions people are feeling at the time. We aren't sure whether God actually "felt" those emotions, but in the Biblical sense, it's the only way in which the authors can try to make people understand His actions.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

God = fairy tale


feel better? :)

[Helm]

Yes, yes it's a contradiction. Hm. Is this thread done?

[Big Papa Goat]

I doubt it

[kahljorn]

I swear I've explained this like thirty times... God is Omniscient Omnipotent and also Omnipresent. This means s\he't knows all, creates all actions(For none can go with or without him, hence the OMNI) and is everywhere at once. NOw whether or not God can actuallly feel emotions "Itself"(Since we are speaking as if it were some bearded fool on a hill), being that it has omni characteristics it must feel the emotions of "Us" or the people within it's omni characteristics.
Yes in a sense being a "OMNI" God would be rather tortureful, and yet bliss. This is why he is omni, but anyway. Because of his omni characteristics he feels emotions and such through us, his "Subjects". This is how the idea of an OMNI Character works, the macrocosm is the microcosm, yet there is neither, because they are one.

[Perndog]

Thank you, Miss Cannabis.

It's my impression that the Judeo-Christian God is most easily defined as something beyond human comprehension. Any contradiction or uncertainty in God's character is simply due to our inability to describe Him completely.

[kellychaos]

The fact of existence is beyond human comprehension. God is utterly within human comprension because we made him up to explain things that were beyond our comprehension. Being a human invention, he originally had human qualities. Not suprisingly, many gods at or prior to that time had human qualities. But, also present in the concept, is a a mulititude of metaphysical qualities which we pion humans are not supposed to be able to grasp and which keeps the knowledge of the ultimate being just out of our mental reach. As human knowledge grew and changed so did the concept of God evolve, and in some aspects, shrink.

[kahljorn]

The Egyptian God's and Goddess's numbered a certain number doubled, and every God and Goddess is a representation of a Human Chromosome.

[The One and Only...]

It's my impression that the Judeo-Christian God is most easily defined as something beyond human comprehension. Any contradiction or uncertainty in God's character is simply due to our inability to describe Him completely.

Yeah, I would say so considering he's a supernatural being. If this weren't the case, just think of how screwed up the doctrine of the Trinity would be.

All Christians would be Unitarian :/ .

[AChimp]

http://members.shaw.ca/achimp/godweiner.jpg

[Helm]

:lol

[VinceZeb]

The fact of existence is beyond human comprehension. God is utterly within human comprension because we made him up to explain things that were beyond our comprehension. Being a human invention, he originally had human qualities. Not suprisingly, many gods at or prior to that time had human qualities. But, also present in the concept, is a a mulititude of metaphysical qualities which we pion humans are not supposed to be able to grasp and which keeps the knowledge of the ultimate being just out of our mental reach. As human knowledge grew and changed so did the concept of God evolve, and in some aspects, shrink.

Wow. How much time did you put into that worthless post? Sit the fuck done Baby Huey while the adults talk.

To put human qualities into God is an exact contradiction to the concept of God Himself. God is a being that is beyond human comprehension. When humans asked God's name, he simply said "I am." The ideas of "compassion" or "justice" as we know it have no place with God. God's law is the law that is follwed. God is "compassionate" when we follow his laws. God throught the Bible has stated that His way is the way it is and if you don't like it, have fun in Hell. You can whine and cry about how "unjust" it is, but since God created reality, existance and time, you can't really give Him any guff that is meaningful.

[Sethomas]

God as an active agent is impossible by his abiding nature intrinsic to being eternal.

That's why my philosophy rocks.

[Helm]

vince: what the fuck, don't you have the new testament over there?

seth: last time you posted parts of it, it was complete rubbish. It's nice to know that's it's rock awesome now.

[kahljorn]

God didn't create reality, reality was already created before him, hence his own existence. He is nothing special, nothing but the bitch of another rue and form.

[Helm]

In the whole world, there is one character I identify with and respect above all. His name is said with respect among the sentient beings in the Universe. He is well-revered as a brillant engineer and scientist and one of the most intelligent minds in existance. His name is I AM. The man who puts the "beyond" in "beyond human comprehension". The man who has single-handedly created the Earth, and then gave it up to silly humen because the challenge was gone. Scroll down to meet the man behind the beard, the king of all, God.

Real Name: "I am"

Occupation: Monarch

Identity: Publicly known

Legal Status: King of all creation, with diplomatic immunity in the United States

Place of Birth: Gypsy camp outside of Haasenstadt, Latveria

Relatives: Mary (Mother, Deacesed), A flower (Father, Deacesed), Pantera(Son)

Height: 6'2"

Weight: 225 lbs.

Eyes: unjust

Hair: totally

Group Affiliation: not jews

First Appearance: Fantastic Four Vol. 1 #5

[Sethomas]

Helm: If you can point out what exactly is "rubbish", please do so. I love scrutiny. And I wasn't talking about my article on the existence of God (which you never sufficiently disproved), but rather about Coeternalism.

God didn't create reality, reality was already created before him, hence his own existence.

That's completely retarded. You can't say that reality was ever "created," much less that it pre-exists God. If that were the case, then whatever DID create reality would be a more true god. The defining attribute of eternity is that it is devoid of beginning, end, and time itself. Your sort of applying such processes of creation is puerile and stupid.

[kahljorn]

I don't have articles, but I'm still smarter than everyone.

[Helm]

I was thinking of your existence of god article which as far as I can recall was riddled with loosely defined terms in a quasi-logical format and as I recall it was 'sufficiently voided' instead of disproved due to the very basic errors or ommisions and your lack of understanding the difference between a demand and a proof. I haven't read your 'philosophy' and I doubt It'd be any better since you're still sticking up for said article. In a few years after you've read a few more things and have pondered a hell of a lot more about those things you'll look back on this article and understand it as the half-formed juvenile and forced apologetic effort it is.

Your sort of applying such processes of creation is puerile and stupid.

Not any bit more retarded that to attributing the burden of creation on another loosely defined semiotic entity like your God.

[Sethomas]

Is that why you're so angry about having a dick? :blah

Edit: Helm came between Kahl and me. >:

[Helm]

I'm a homewrecker :(

[kahljorn]

My dick is also bigger than everyone's, and I can PROVE it.

[AChimp]

Will you get to keep it, or do they just give it to someone else? I'd have it stuffed for a nice mantlepiece.

[kahljorn]

They use the dick to manufacture the vagina, the bigger the dick the better pussy you get.

"That's completely retarded. You can't say that reality was ever "created," much less that it pre-exists God. If that were the case, then whatever DID create reality would be a more true god. The defining attribute of eternity is that it is devoid of beginning, end, and time itself. Your sort of applying such processes of creation is puerile and stupid."

Your reality was created when you were born, then constantly recreated through every second as you went through life. You don't even live in the same reality you lived in 20 minutes ago, because I just introduced a contaminate into it. BLAM I CHANGED YO UR REALITY BEOTCH.
There is no true God. Because above the true God of the true God there is another True God, sort of like between every two notes is a different scale, and between every two notes of that is another scale. It's fucking infinite.

[AChimp]

WEIRD. I thought they just switched parts, like on a robot. :O

[kahljorn]

nope... they cut your dick in half like a hotdog bun and use it for the tissue, then take the head and use it as the clit... or maybe it's the scrotum tisssue they use for the lips, I forget, but yea. I like the hot dog description.

[kahljorn]

Hurry up and argue, I love philosophical discussions and arguments, come on you fuck. COME ON FUCK. COME ON. I already have a thesis written on this arguement in my head, it was instantaneous like God's affirmation of his own existance, fucking rock motherfucker. Rock's don't think, remember this at all times.




OR DO THEY.

[Sethomas]

Dude, I've got a paper to write on Marcuse versus Hayek. Have some patience.

Your reality was created when you were born, then constantly recreated through every second as you went through life.

You're using you're own concept of reality here, one that is subjective to observation. I wasn't playing that game, because it's lame and irrelevant.

There is no true God. Because above the true God of the true God there is another True God, sort of like between every two notes is a different scale, and between every two notes of that is another scale. It's fucking infinite.

Dude, have you NEVER read anything philosophical besides that which flies out your ass? From a philosophical perspective, the purpose of god is to rationalize and quelch infinite regressions in the lines of causality. Therefore, if "It's fucking infinite", by definition it has no part of any god.

[kahljorn]

Okay well I will just go ahead and give you something to get over... it's your own words!

"The defining attribute of eternity is that it is devoid of beginning, end, and time itself."
THEREFORE GOD IS SUBJECT TO THE DEFINING RULES OF ETERNITY/INFINITY, and because of this the direct God of God would be eternity. This makes God halfsome, like half and half, but less milky. Although he is wh ite, racist asshole.
Eternity/infinity is an ASPIRING concept, th ough it is IMPOSSIBLE, because INIFINITY would have to include inconclusive nonconstant awareness, and also non-infinite, or the finite. Because of this-There is your first flaw, and the flaw has been flawed. The second point has been made clear, and now you shall oven mitt.

Of course, you could always say God is infinite, rather than subjected to the rule of infinity, but this makes God too many steps above the scale. If God was in fact infinite, then he would by himself be composed entirely of flaws and perfections, which is theologically impossible since we are intervened in a logical discussion involving big words that don't mix well. However this has already been explained, and since God is of an incomprehensible activity we must conclude God is composed entirely of flaws, and this is true. And god is composed entirely of perfections, and this is true. To say either is not true would be true, because God is not comprehensible. This must be true because it is not true, and because of this you can only argue that you cannot argue with it.

Because God is INFINITE he must also be NOT INFINITE, and must be constantly recreated every second, and every second of a second, and every second of a second of a second of a second. Sort of like the Pieces in a lego set must constantly hold together otherwise it would fall apart. This in itself is a logical fallacy.
The idea of creation and recreation without end is not infinite, and the idea that recreation is not squeezed between ends is also a knot that cannot be untied except by I, the confusing municiple court of law. Municiple. Think about the word. Okay stop thinking now.

You won't m ake sense of ANY of that.

[kahljorn]

"You're using you're own concept of reality here, one that is subjective to observation. I wasn't playing that game, because it's lame and irrelevant. "

Because it is a perceptual reality it must be true, and true must be true for true is true, is this not true? You just used your own concept of reality to denounce my fragment of reality, and because of this I must be wrong? Incorrect. Both of us must be wrong, and right, and wrong about being right and right about being wrong and neither wrong nor right.
There is no observation of this, only the representation, you can attempt to observe the representation, but come on.. you can't observe the subtle unknowns that are known only to another, it's like another existance/reality/universe in another person's mind, and you can never go there... how lonely are you!
I Just woke up from being drunk and passed out, I'm stylish.

So you are correct, it is irrelevant, but how can it be irrelevant in a discussion about the inifinite, which wo uld include the UNKOWNS to you. How theological/philisophical do you want to get.

I've read plenty of philosophy, for I am planty the plant, and I can plant seeds of plants.

[Sethomas]

For being so fucking condescending, you sure are incompetant.

Your entire post, as fun as it was, is null of meaning SINCE I NEVER SAID THAT GOD IS INFINITE. God is NOT infinite, he is ETERNAL. The idea that eternity is simply an infinite amount of time has been known to be erroneous for THREE FUCKING MILLENNIA. What is eternity? According to Boethius, it's "The complete and simultaneously whole possession of endless life." Augustine and Aquinas later affirmed this. If you want a "proof", well, the best place to look can be found within the first twenty pages of my thesis.

Your attempts at being profound or even intelligent are so shallow you couldn't drown an infant in them.

[kahljorn]

So God is outside of Time? Then God is lacking time, and because of this god's god must be time. How can you put God so low as to put him below time, this is a bad argument, he's supposed to be super. Omnipresence would include being within time, and being without time. This would be infinicity, not eternanicity. God must be like 08314631589631956137963795631 times infinity people things and items. The zero in front is important.

God is supposed to be limitless, thus he must be full of limits. For limitlessness itself is a limit. This is like a simple argument, I like repeating it. It's great, it's INCOMPREHENSIBLE OH N O.

Sometimes arguments expand, like clouds. What you said is meaningless, since I said it. Quit arguing what you said or didn't say, that is so irrelevant, you are full of yourself. Saying things is impotent. Is this hard to understand. Saying is not worth a quarter, and no one will ever give a damn what you say.

[kahljorn]

Also quit trying to get people to read your thesis, it's fucking stupid. Every other post you make is THESIS THESIS THESIS, I used the word thesis once and all it was was a bunch of garbage compiled and recycled into a pretty thought. THESIS THESIS THESIS THESIS THESIS. I'm sethomas.

[Sethomas]

The only reason I'm trying to "sell" it is because I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

And Jesus, take some fucking ritalin or something.

So God is outside of Time? Then God is lacking time, and because of this god's god must be time.

Yes, God is outside of time. Good job. That doesn't make God's god time, because, well, that's not even a coherent thought and you should be ashamed of such stupidity.

For limitlessness itself is a limit.

So you're saying you've never taken calculus, in which you surely would have learned that any expression of infinity is NOT a limit. "Hole, pole, skip, and jump," remember that?

"But aha! Calculus is unapplicable to this situation because of the cosmic fortitude of god. And God's god, and the gods of her, too! But by having these gods, god proves that he is godless! It's so elementery logic!"

[kahljorn]

If God cannot exist within time, that is a limit, if you are saying God and time cannnot even mix because god is so Godly.. well, then God is too Godly. But be ing too godly means you can't be UNGODLY, see, a limit. It's too evident within itself.

Umm, also.. stuff stuff and more stuff.

You just seem to think that God is not included within reality, but that means God does not even exist. He is like that wraping paper on christmas you cut off the box cause there's too much... and i love that part of existance, so don't trash it. If y ou are saying God exists and is just outside this reality.. then you are just saying there is another reality outside this reality. What the fuck is a reality anyway. God must exist within a confine, because he EXISTS. CONFINEMENT

I feel bad for you because you do not understand that being without is still being within, just within the outside rather than within the in, even if it is some non-inclusive representation of reality, which cannot be because God has come to earth as manifestations, like bushes and shit. Is there a hole, a hole between them. But a hole would make them the same place, like water does. Unless there is airpressure, is God airpressure.

Girlfriend's on phone, brb.

[Sethomas]

I'm sorry, I really am. The problem is, I come from a school of thought that insists that arguments should make coherent sense. I hope this concept doesn't cause you too much harm.

You just seem to think that God is not included within reality, but that means God does not even exist.

The only way it might seem like that is that you can't find fault with what I've said in the conventional way, so you transpose thoughts on my behalf.

God is included within reality. I never said anything to the contrary.

And I've had girlfriends before, too. >:

[kahljorn]

"I'm sorry, I really am. The problem is, I come from a school of thought that insists that arguments should make coherent sense. I hope this concept doesn't cause you too much harm. "

This had nothing to do with the argument, I'm sorry, you have betrayed your school of thought.. the world is ending.

Anyway, what exactly DID you say so I can poke holes in it. I hate people who strive to hold things together.

[VinceZeb]

Wow, Helm, you are so fucking clever. Now maybe if you can transfer the effort that you used to copy something from my 7 year old website to taking a bath or not speaking english like you are a retard, you will be all set.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Wow, Helm, you are so fucking clever. Now maybe if you can transfer the effort that you used to copy something from my 7 year old website to taking a bath or not speaking english like you are a retard, you will be all set.

Hey Max....here's another brilliant quite to add to your list!

[Dole]

"or not speaking english like you are a retard"

-he has a better grasp of English than you ever will, and its his second language.

[pjalne]

This is one of the best things Vince has ever said.

[kellychaos]

I'm sick of lame excuses like:

For not answering prayers: Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

For not helping: God helps those who help themselves.

For making fucked up things happen: The Lord works in mysterious ways.

It's all rubbish to explain time, chance and the unexplainable.

And so it goes with your "eternal" argument, Seth. We can't explain God in temporal terms since the matrix of human thought demands "cause and effect" and, if we were to say that God is the "prime mover" or uncaused cause, then people would have a problem with that because they would demand who created God. Thus, we will say that He is "eternal" and put it out of the realm of things humans can think about and into the realm of the metaphysical thus avoid having the argument at all. It's a cop-out is what it is.

And Kahl: I loved the infinite musical scale analogy. It's so Zeno! ... and I'm not being ironic.

And Vinth:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that who ever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The Bible, John 3:16

That's just off the top of my head. Let me know if you want to go quote for quote. The Bible anthropomorphizes God in several different instances and is not the Bible the word of God? Don't contradict yourself now!

[kahljorn]

Yea, I liked it too.

[Helm]

I can see him sweating nervously and scratching his hive sores while he typed that amazing post.

[VinceZeb]

Kelly, learn what anthropomorphizes means before you start throwing words out there, you fucking cunt. I am amazed that you werent a "training casulty" when you were in the military.

Helm, you need to understand that I'm not fat. However, your slurred speech, love of homosexual sex, and odor are not that far off from the truth.

[Sethomas]

And so it goes with your "eternal" argument, Seth. We can't explain God in temporal terms since the matrix of human thought demands "cause and effect" and, if we were to say that God is the "prime mover" or uncaused cause, then people would have a problem with that because they would demand who created God. Thus, we will say that He is "eternal" and put it out of the realm of things humans can think about and into the realm of the metaphysical thus avoid having the argument at all. It's a cop-out is what it is.

How exactly is that a cop-out? Not everyone, especially not the theologians with whom I concern myself, put matters of eternity "out of the real of things humans can think about." Just because you're uneducated of such teachings doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to the entire concept.

[kahljorn]

I tried to talk about eternity and you couldn't understant, kind of made me laugh.

[Sethomas]

God, you're so fucking pompous yet retarded.

KAHL! WE'RE NOT IMPRESSED WITH YOU! YOU'RE NOT A GENIUS!

Now go and sulk about how misunderstood you are. Just don't post about it.

[Perndog]

Sorry kahl, I'm with Seth on this one.

EDIT: not necessarily about his philosophy but about you being full of crap.

[kahljorn]

OH God :(

Somebody read my thesis.

[kahljorn]

I just read Philip K Dick's "How To Build A Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later" a few days ago, I think it would do good in this thread about timely stuff.

Basically, philip k dick wrote a book called flow my tears the policeman said, and when he wrote he he wrote it like he was channeling it. This means he wrote without thinking, and wrote really fast. Four years later at a christmas party he met this girl named kathy.. ill just copy paste it i dont feel like explaining.


"It is an eerie experience to write something into a novel, believing it is pure fiction, and to learn later on -- perhaps years later -- that it is true. I would like to give you an example. It is something that I do not understand. Perhaps you can come up with a theory. I can't.

In 1970 I wrote a novel called Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said. One of the characters is a nineteen-year-old girl named Kathy. Her husband's name is Jack. Kathy appears to work for the criminal underground, but later, as we read deeper into the novel, we discover that actually she is working for the police. She has a relationship going on with a police inspector. The character is pure fiction. Or at least I thought it was.

Anyhow, on Christmas Day of 1970, I met a girl named Kathy - this was after I had finished the novel, you understand. She was nineteen years old. Her boyfriend was named Jack. I soon learned that Kathy was a drug dealer. I spent months trying to get her to give up dealing drugs; I kept warning her again and again that she would get caught. Then, one evening as we were entering a restauant together, Kathy stopped short and said, "I can't go in." Seated in the restaurant was a police inspector whom I knew. "I have to tell you the truth," Kathy said. "I have a relationship with him."

Certainly, these are odd coincidences. Perhaps I have precognition. But the mystery becomes even more perplexing; the next stage totally baffles me. It has for four years.

In 1974 the novel was published by Doubleday. One afternoon I was talking to my priest -- I am an Episcopalian -- and I happened to mention to him an important scene near the end of the novel in wich the character Felix Buckman meets a black stranger at an all-night gas station, and they begin to talk. As I described the scene in more and more detail, my priest became progressively more agitated. At last he said, "That is a scene from the Book of Acts, from the Bible! In Acts, the person who meets the black man on the road is named Philip -- your name." Father Rasch was so upset by the resemblance that he could not even locate the scene in his Bible. "Read Acts," he instructed me. "And you'll agree. It's the same down to specific details."

I went home and read the scene in Acts. Yes, Father Rasch was right; the scene in my novel was an obvious retelling of the scene in Acts... and I had never read Acts, I must admit. But again the puzzle became deeper. In Acts, the high Roman official who arrests and interrogates Saint Paul is named Felix -- the same name as my character. And my character Felix Buckman is a high-ranking police general; in fact, in my novel he holds the same office as Felix in the Book of Acts: the final authority. There is a conversation in my novel which very closely resembles a conversation between Felix and Paul.

...

But the mystery had not ended there, as I had imagined. Two months ago I was walking up to the mailbox late at night to mail off a letter, and also to enjoy the sight of Saint Joseph's Church, which sits opposite my apartment building. I noticed a man loitering suspiciously by a parked car. It looked as if he was attempting to steal the car, or maybe something from it; as I returned from the mailbox, the man hid behind a tree. On impulse I walked up to him and asked, "Is anything the mattter?"

"I'm out of gas," the man said. "And I have no money."

Incredibly, because I have never done this before, I got out my wallet, took all the money from it, and handed the money to him. He then shook hands with me and asked where I lived, so that he could later pay the money back. I returned to my apartment, and then I realized that the money would do him no good, since there was no gas station within walking distance. So I returned, in my car. The man had a metal gas can in the trunk of his car, and, together, we drove in my car to an all-night gas station. Soon we were standing there, two strangers, as the pump jockey filled the metal gas can. Suddenly I realized that this was the scene in my novel -- the novel written eight years before. The all-night gas station was exactly as I had envisioned it in my inner eye when I wrote the scene -- the glaring white light, the pump jockey -- and now I saw something which I had not seen before. The stranger who I was helping was black.

We drove back to his stalled car with the gas, shook hands, and then I returned to my apartment building. I never saw him again. He could not pay me back because I had not told him which of the many apartments was mine or what my name was. I was terribly shaken up by this experience. I had literally lived out a scene completely as it had appeared in my novel. Which is to say, I had lived out a sort of replica of the scene in Acts where Philip encounters the black man on the road. "

That's the first part.

"What could explain all this?

The answer I have come up with may not be correct, but it is the only answer I have. It has to do with time. My theory is this: In some certain important sense, time is not real. Or perhaps it is real, but not as we experience it to be or imagine it to be. I had the acute, overwhelming certitude (and still have) that despite all the change we see, a specific permanent landscape underlies the world of change: and that this invisible underlying landscape is that of the Bible; it, specifically, is the period immediately following the death and resurrection of Christ; it is, in other words, the time period of the Book of Acts.

Parmenides would be proud of me. I have gazed at a constantly changing world and declared that underneath it lies the eternal, the unchanging, the absolutely real. but how has this come about? If the real time is circa A.D. 50, then why do we see A.D. 1978? And if we are really living in the Roman Empire, somewhere in Syria, why do we see the United States?

During the Middle Ages, a curious theory arose, which I will now present to you for what it is worth. It is the theory that the Evil One -- Satan -- is the "Ape of God." That he creates spurious imitations of creation, of God's authentic creation, and then interpolates them for that authentic creation. Does this odd theory help explain my experience? Are we to believe that we are occluded, that we are deceived, that it is not 1978 but A.D. 50... and Satan has spun a counterfeit reality to wither our faith in the return of Christ? "



So there's your answer to eternity.. there is no eternity! It's just 50 ad, "eternally".

I love that essay.

[kellychaos]

Kelly, learn what anthropomorphizes means before you start throwing words out there, you fucking cunt. I am amazed that you werent a "training casulty" when you were in the military.



It means giving human characteristics to non-human life forms. The Bible says that God created man in his own image. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then God himself/herself is stating that he is either an organic life form similiar to man or, more likely if you favor Ockham's Razor, he is an organic life form that is almost exactly like man. Consequently, God anthropomorphized himself to a degree. What would his/her purpose be in doing that? He/She either IS, at least partly, human or not. Period. You can find several instances in Genesis where God listens, hears, speaks, shows human emotion, ect. Why would a spiritual entity feel the need to use any human forms of sentience if he were omnipotent and omnipresent? However, if you are of the opionion that man himself wrote the Bible to explain his existence, then it would be entirely probable that he would assign human forms of sentience and emotion as that is what they understood at the time. They didn't need the metaphysical that's since been infused in religion.

[Sethomas]

And here we find two powerful testimonies to the need for a :yawn emoticon.

[kellychaos]

How exactly is that a cop-out? Not everyone, especially not the theologians with whom I concern myself, put matters of eternity "out of the real of things humans can think about." Just because you're uneducated of such teachings doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to the entire concept.

Don't feel badly, Seth. Even Kant, one of the most brilliant philosophers who ever lived had a hard time proving theology. He had the faith but his attempts at theological proofs were among his weakest arguments and he often avoided them altogether. How does being more or less educated lead one to literally see into eternity? That's ridiculous. Eternity is a concept and, by definition, is indiscrete, inconcrete and unknowable. Just because your faith leads you to believe you literally CAN see such things, it does not mean that you are any more capable than I to do so. It's just not real. Get it?

[Bennett]

intro-philosophy classes are fun!

[Drew Katsikas]

:lol

[Drew Katsikas]

hey why dont yuou gutys all stop thinking so hard drink beer and listen to some jason mraz with me?

[Bennett]

my mom's got some mike's hard lemonade and the josh groban cd

:lol

[kahljorn]

In Genesis it says, "And God was walking through the garden, looking for adam and eve"(more or less). Some all present all knowing God he is.

[Bennett]

what, did you look for an example that was as close to the beginning of the bible as possible?
MY COCK IS HUGE.

[Sethomas]

Kelly, you're a blatant and shameful hypocrite in that you accuse a vast ontological tradition of "copping out" by making reference to eternity as a concept, but then you refuse to open your eyes to any rational contemplation of eternity because of certain predjudices you have about it. That, Kelly, is a fucking cop-out.

Eternity is a concept and, by definition, is indiscrete, inconcrete and unknowable.

I've never encountered such a definition of it, so reason dictates that you're pulling this weakly out of your ass. That's the exact same attitude that many civilizations held about weather and the cosmos. Yet what did they do? They dissected them into rational components of understanding, they applied logic to these building blocks of knowledge, and they extrapolated working models of nature. The same can be done for metaphysics.

it does not mean that you are any more capable than I to do so.

Accusing me of holding conceptions that I can hold greater abstract thought than you is no less presumptuous than you thinking I can't conceive of these things simply because YOU NEVER PUT IN THE EFFORT. I don't claim to have astounding gifts of reason. I'm merely stating that I have devoted a great deal of time in rumination on these things, so it JUST MIGHT BE POSSIBLE that I have a tad bit more insight into them than the majority of people here.

The attitude that "eternity is complicated, don't even TRY to fathom it" is just defeatist and ignorant.

[kellychaos]

If you can measure it, or have a knowledge of it by contemplating it, then it is not, by definition, eternal. You then would need to do more contemplating and so, ad infitum. I didn't say I didn't spend any time thinking about it. I just don't think about it all the time like some. :shrug

[Sethomas]

Maybe by your definition. Which SUCKS.

[sspadowsky]

I'll go you one better, Seth: This whole thread needs a :yawn emoticon.

[Anonymouse]

Finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite.

[Sethomas]

ETERNITY ISN'T INFINITY. >:

[Brandon]

I'd like to take this moment to apologize for starting this thread.

[Anonymouse]

God loves you.

[kahljorn]

OKAY EVERYONE ETERNITY ISNT INFINITY, NOT THAT ANY OF US HAVE PERMISSION TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, WE DO NOT. ONLY SETH HAS THAT POWER. Eternity and infinity cannot be discussed in the same sentence, because seth gets confused.


"Infinity

n : time without end [syn: eternity, forever]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University"

"eternity

\E*ter"ni*ty\, n.; pl. Eternities. [F. ['e]ternit['e], L. aeternitas, fr. aeternus. See Etern.] 1. Infinite duration, without beginning in the past or end in the future; also, duration without end in the future; endless time."

wee

[kellychaos]

A dictionary! Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? :(

[Brandon]

OKAY EVERYONE ETERNITY ISNT INFINITY, NOT THAT ANY OF US HAVE PERMISSION TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, WE DO NOT. ONLY SETH HAS THAT POWER. Eternity and infinity cannot be discussed in the same sentence, because seth gets confused.


"Infinity

n : time without end [syn: eternity, forever]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University"

"eternity

\E*ter"ni*ty\, n.; pl. Eternities. [F. ['e]ternit['e], L. aeternitas, fr. aeternus. See Etern.] 1. Infinite duration, without beginning in the past or end in the future; also, duration without end in the future; endless time."

wee
Can you spot the difference in those two definitions, though, Kahl?

Infinity can have a beginning; eternity does not.

[kahljorn]

uhh, infinite has no begining, like when you make a line on a graph. Now that line may seem like it starts where you started it, but depending on the ratio it will go backwards and forwards, infinitley. What the fuck is this. If there was "Infinite Time" then it would have to go BOTH ways, INFINITLEY.


"infi·nite·ly adv.
infi·nite·ness n.

Synonyms: infinite, boundless, eternal, illimitable, sempiternal
These adjectives mean being without beginning or end: infinite wisdom; boundless ambition; eternal beauty; illimitable space; sempiternal truth. See also synonyms at incalculable

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved."

[Sethomas]

Actually, calculus goes against you yet again. An infinite regression can in fact have a lower limit, so infinity does in fact have beginning.

And you're wasting your time with dictionary entries, since they're not meant to be philosophically rigorous. I already supplied my definition from my sources. Not like that concerns you, anyways.

[kahljorn]

Want to know something neat. Infinite can be used as an adjective, this means you can attach words to it that give it different meanings, like infinte regression. Wow, nice job stupid fuck, "Can" have a lower limit.

You are a philisophical genius!

[Sethomas]

So... you still lack a point?

[kahljorn]

You can say something like, "Infinite Time" or "Boundless time" or "Limitless time". This means without a begining or end, this is the idea of word combinations, to change meanings.

Also, infinite includes more than just being outside of time, it is an infinite term, now stop your weak arguments. "INFINITE"S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH FOR ME", you really are a little slow aren't you. The bible says many times that god has "Infinite Wisdom", and infinite can be applied to more than one scenario. What do you think infinite wisdom means. Do you think that means it ends somewhere, that if you ask him a co mplicated enough problem he won't know what it means. Think about it. Saying God is infinite is like saying god is infinite in his infinite aspects, infinitley. Infinite's better, now go bitch somewhere else. INFINITE CUBED INFINITLEY. The infinite faces of God. Yada yada.

[Sethomas]

You're dumb.

Infinity is not the same thing as eternity. And infinity has a definite beginning, which is 0. That's why in math we refer to "negative infinity" separately. But you're obviously above conventional notions like mathematical or philosophical reasoning, so I don't know why I bother. Oh yeah, because your pathetic attempts amuse me.

[Perndog]

Seth, will you cite one source that differentiates "infinity" and "eternity" so we will know you're not making it up?

[Sethomas]

The working definition that I use for "eternity" comes from De Consolatione Philosophia, De Civitate Dei, and Summa Theologica. For an understanding of infinity, I rest on my modest education in mathematics.

[Perndog]

I was asking for a philosophical source which differentiates the two terms. Philosophy and mathematics don't speak the same language; as far as any philosophy I've read is concerned, infinity and eternity are perfect synonyms and are used interchangeably (except eternity is preferred when referring to time).

[Sethomas]

Well, strictly speaking infinity is a mathematical term, whereas eternity is philosophical. The philosophical equivalent to infinity, as something that has beginning but no end, is immortal. In conventional theology, the soul is immortal but God is eternal, for example.

[Perndog]

Alright, works for me.

[kahljorn]

You are speaking the language of modifiers, I am speaking the language of the crisp and pure, two different things. I suppose you shouldn't confuse your philosophy with mathematics, and should learn to think somehow greater than whatever crap you have read and decided to reliterate.

Also, eternal is a theological term, philosophy and theology are different.

[The One and Only...]

Eternity relates only to time, while infinity can relate to anything, such as space.

[Helm]

Yes, thank you and fuck off. Back to your penile introspection or something.

[kellychaos]

And infinity has a definite beginning, which is 0. That's why in math we refer to "negative infinity" separately.

Did you notice that you, again, attached a qualifier (negative) to your remark that automatically infers direction. Of course, eternal is used in relation to time. It's a more specific case of inifinity in it's use. You can say "an infinite amount of time" but I've never heard "an eternal amount of space". So what? Does that make the usage wrong if the definitions match?