It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3]

[Veritas Aequitas]

That holy text is the Worst word salad that drives believers to kill non-believers.

Well, at least it does something. Your word salad does nothing.

"It is Impossible for God to Be Real" is supported by Buddhism [non-theistic] which provide
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
to alleviate existential pains and sufferings of individual[s] without motivating believers to kill non-believers for the slightest threat.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• “Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines”.
  Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him.
Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.
To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life.
You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.
All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary.

Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73/

[Age]

It is IMPOSSIBLE for (the VERSION of) 'God' that some people have and use, like for example, "veritas aequitas", "henry quirk", AND "Immanuel can". But, WHEN WHO and WHAT the word 'God' is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, is REVEALED, or DISCOVERED, by others ALSO, then IF it is possible for God to be real, or not, then becomes KNOWN, FOR SURE, and WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL.

[godelian]

Do Buddhist believe in god?

So, your impossibility proof now revolves around the allegation that Buddhists do not believe in God. That would finally prove it!

Buddhism does not talk about God just like geometry does not talk about God. It means exactly nothing.

You are not incontrovertibly proving anything.

[Gary Childress]

"You write that something "is impossible", which requires an incontrovertible argument, which in turn only exists in mathematics."

Yeah, but you can't do that either with the converse; you couldn't say it's impossible for a universe to exist without god, and any set of arguments you created to demonstrate that a god must exist could be a ceasar word salad for all we know.

When we reach the limits of rationality, such as by asking ourselves, What could possibly be the meaning of life? Why are we even here? Is there a God? there is still the possibility of spirituality. The option is there.

It works for me. It works for a whole bunch of other people. It doesn't work, however, for people who do not believe that it works.

I feel sorry for these people because one day they may end up deeply depressed, hoping to medicate themselves out of the black hole that they are in, but in fact, not even, because hope is a spiritual and not a rational activity.

A lot of these people are doomed. They are often an accident waiting to happen, and just one life-changing event away from a personal Armageddon.

We could donate a bit of money to the suicide helpline, hoping that its volunteers can give these people hope, but we all know that this is in fact also hopeless. There is no hope for people who do not believe in hope.

Religious people get depressed too. Religion is not a stop gap against depression nor a panacea for it.

Well, I commend you for having a positive, "can-do" attitude. It's very admirable. Not everyone has it and it's not clear to me that all those that do have it deserve their fortune any more than all those who don't have such an attitude deserve their misfortune. Life is luck of the draw in some cases. I did not choose to have my first psychosis at age 25. It materialized out of nowhere. However, because I have had it, there is nothing I can do to un-have it and there is nothing I can do to guarantee that I will not continue having them. I've had dozens over the years.

My only advice to the industrious is to be careful of what you "can do" because not everything is worthy of doing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do Buddhist believe in god?

So, your impossibility proof now revolves around the allegation that Buddhists do not believe in God. That would finally prove it!

Buddhism does not talk about God just like geometry does not talk about God. It means exactly nothing.

You are not incontrovertibly proving anything.

Strawman again.

The line of argument was this;
You insist all my presentation is word salad.
I stated your holy text is the worst word salad.
You said, at least your holy text contribute to something while my "word-salad" [your claim not mine] contributes[d] to nothing.

My point is,
my "word-salad" "It is Impossible for God to Be Real" is the supported by non-theistic Buddhism which do not believe God exists.
Buddhism has contributed tremendously to humanity without the need for a belief in God.
Since my 'word salad' is the same of atheistic Buddhism,
therefore my "word salad" which is the same as in the non-theistic Buddhism, has contributed to the well being of individual[s] within humanity.

Basically atheism as "It is Impossible for God to Be Real", contributed significantly and positively* to the well-being of individual[s] within human.
* it has its negative contribution [with room for reduction in the future] but its positive contribution is undeniable.

Those who are non-theistic are not trapped within the bondage of an illusory beings;
while those [many] who are bonded to an illusory God are obligated to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion, e.g. Q5:33.

Theistic beliefs and doctrines like those of the Abrahamic religions are immutable thus no room for improvements till eternity.

Whist non-theists could be evil at present due to the animal-nature within, there is room for moral improvements [which can be expedited with quantum jumps] in the future as evident on the trend of moral improvements since 10,000 years ago to the present.

[godelian]

The line of argument was this;
You insist all my presentation is word salad.
I stated your holy text is the worst word salad.
You said, at least your holy text contribute to something while my "word-salad" [your claim not mine] contributes[d] to nothing.

Well, there are billions of people who believe the holy text. There is apparently just one person who believes your word salad. In terms of achievement, there is clearly no comparison.

my "word-salad" "It is Impossible for God to Be Real" is the supported by non-theistic Buddhism which do not believe God exists.

Buddhism does not talk about God. That is perfectly fine, because not everything has to talk about God. Concluding that Buddhism does not believe in God is one bridge too far. Some people interpret it like that, but it is clearly a stretch.

Those who are non-theistic are not trapped within the bondage of an illusory beings;

They are often trapped in other ways that are not particularly more attractive. The idea of God works for a lot of people. If it does not work for you, then try something else instead. If you don't like playing football, then try playing tennis? Going around telling people who like playing football that they should not like it, is quite ridiculous.

while those [many] who are bonded to an illusory God are obligated to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion, e.g. Q5:33.

An idea that seeks to survive long term, needs to defend itself. It is just the cost of doing business.

Theistic beliefs and doctrines like those of the Abrahamic religions are immutable thus no room for improvements till eternity.

The same holds true for Pythagoras' theorem. It is immutable and cannot be improved till eternity. An idea provable from its theory will remain provable forever.

Whist non-theists could be evil at present due to the animal-nature within, there is room for moral improvements [which can be expedited with quantum jumps] in the future as evident on the trend of moral improvements since 10,000 years ago to the present.

Why would we even care? Our moral theory works fine for us. If it does not work for you, then use another moral theory. What does not work, however, is to insist that other people should use another moral theory, because that is essentially none of your business.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The line of argument was this;
You insist all my presentation is word salad.
I stated your holy text is the worst word salad.
You said, at least your holy text contribute to something while my "word-salad" [your claim not mine] contributes[d] to nothing.

Well, there are billions of people who believe the holy text. There is apparently just one person who believes your word salad. In terms of achievement, there is clearly no comparison.

my "word-salad" "It is Impossible for God to Be Real" is the supported by non-theistic Buddhism which do not believe God exists.

Buddhism does not talk about God. That is perfectly fine, because not everything has to talk about God. Concluding that Buddhism does not believe in God is one bridge too far. Some people interpret it like that, but it is clearly a stretch.

It is not "Some people interpret it like that .."
I have given you the link concluding, "Buddhism Does not Believe in a God".
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73/
So, my supposedly "word salad" is the same as what Buddhism-proper believe, so my thesis is not just a one-person's-belief.

Those who are non-theistic are not trapped within the bondage of an illusory beings;

They are often trapped in other ways that are not particularly more attractive. The idea of God works for a lot of people. If it does not work for you, then try something else instead. If you don't like playing football, then try playing tennis? Going around telling people who like playing football that they should not like it, is quite ridiculous.

I don't deny theism works for most people at present [based on the present psychological state] which is necessary to soothe the inherent and unavoidable inherent existential crisis that general angsts and subliminal pains that need to be relieved.
The acceptance of a God provide immediate relief, i.e. "believe and surrender" and viola the pains disappear almost immediately.

In the present, [the pros of theism outweigh its cons] I have recommended those who are in that kind of psychological state of desperation must adopt theism e.g. Christianity and others, but definitely not the evil laden The Religion of Peace; this is only for the present but not the future (next 80 years) [when cons of theism outweigh its pro] when humans are improving to deal with the inherent existential crisis more efficiently.

will address the other points later.

[godelian]

I don't deny theism works for most people at present [based on the present psychological state] which is necessary to soothe the inherent and unavoidable inherent existential crisis that general angsts and subliminal pains that need to be relieved.
The acceptance of a God provide immediate relief, i.e. "believe and surrender" and viola the pains disappear almost immediately.

Religion clearly does something that works for people who believe that it does. That is why people like you are a net negative. You are trying to destroy a tool that helps so many people. What exactly is going to help them instead? You have nothing to offer.

In the present, [the pros of theism outweigh its cons] I have recommended those who are in that kind of psychological state of desperation must adopt theism e.g. Christianity and others, but definitely not the evil laden The Religion of Peace; this is only for the present but not the future (next 80 years) [when cons of theism outweigh its pro] when humans are improving to deal with the inherent existential crisis more efficiently.

Christianity is not good, or no longer good at the job. Whatever.

You have to staunchly believe that the tool will work, because otherwise it doesn't.

Islam is incredibly effective at doing exactly that: getting people to believe that it will work for them, and that is precisely why it indeed does.

Your word salad does not even seek to address the spiritual "existential" crisis. It does not give hope where there isn't any. That is, however, what people need. I can clearly see that Islam is successful at doing that. That is why I am in favor of its action. Faith helps people survive through difficult times.

Some believers may exaggerate and go around killing people who shit talk Islam, but that is the cost of doing business. It is not possible to precisely fine tune its action or its effect. So, it accidentally sacrifices individuals who are useless anyway. We can try to limit the damage somehow but don't hold your breath.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theistic beliefs and doctrines like those of the Abrahamic religions are immutable thus no room for improvements till eternity.

The same holds true for Pythagoras' theorem. It is immutable and cannot be improved till eternity. An idea provable from its theory will remain provable forever.

Whatever are secular principles, they are not commanded to be immutable by a God.
There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

Whist non-theists could be evil at present due to the animal-nature within, there is room for moral improvements [which can be expedited with quantum jumps] in the future as evident on the trend of moral improvements since 10,000 years ago to the present.

Why would we even care? Our moral theory works fine for us. If it does not work for you, then use another moral theory. What does not work, however, is to insist that other people should use another moral theory, because that is essentially none of your business.

There would be no concern if 'your moral theory' did not commit this;
46,596 incidents with fatalities commit in the name of TROP since 911,
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
which pose a threat [exterminate the human species] to the human species in the future
plus the evident loads of evil committed by TROP prior to 911.

The above is a threat to the Vision and Mission for humanity, i.e.
1. Who am I?
2. What can I know?
3. What must I do?
4. What can I hope for? - Perpetual Peace

As a human being it is my business to be concern for progress toward perpetual peace for humanity in the future.
The 'moral' theory from TROP as evident is a threat to the progress of perpetual peace [not 100% but gradual improvements].

Meanwhile theists are merely desperate and personally selfish to relief the subliminal pains and angst emerging from the inherent existential crisis.
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

[godelian]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

You do not understand provability. You do not understand mathematics. You only say these things because you don't know what you are talking about.

As a human being it is my business to be concern for progress toward perpetual peace for humanity in the future.

You cannot force anybody to believe what you are saying. What you are saying, does not even make sense to begin with. The funny thing is that religion does not even try to do that. There is not compulsion in religion. People voluntarily believe it and they voluntarily disbelieve people like you.

[godelian]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

Look at how ChatGPT wipes the floor with what you are saying:

ChatGPT: Will Pythagoras' theorem be eternally provable from classical Euclidean geometry?

Yes, Pythagoras' theorem will remain provable within the framework of classical Euclidean geometry as long as the foundational axioms and assumptions of Euclidean geometry are upheld. The theorem is a direct logical consequence of these axioms and forms one of the cornerstones of Euclidean geometry.

Why is it eternally provable?

Axiomatic System: Classical Euclidean geometry is based on a consistent set of axioms, such as the parallel postulate, which define the properties of points, lines, and planes. Pythagoras' theorem is a logical consequence of these axioms.

Timeless Validity: Mathematics, unlike physical sciences, is not contingent upon the physical world. It operates within abstract, idealized systems, and the validity of a theorem within a specific mathematical framework does not change over time.

Logical Deduction: The proof of Pythagoras' theorem involves logical steps derived from Euclidean axioms. As long as these axioms are accepted, the proof remains valid.

Contextual Limitations

While Pythagoras' theorem is eternally valid within Euclidean geometry, it does not necessarily apply in other geometrical contexts:

Non-Euclidean Geometries: In hyperbolic and spherical geometries, the relationships between the sides of a triangle differ, and Pythagoras' theorem does not hold in its classical form.

Physical World: Real-world space, as described by general relativity, is non-Euclidean. Thus, the theorem is not directly applicable in curved spacetime without modifications.

In summary, within the idealized framework of Euclidean geometry, Pythagoras' theorem will remain eternally provable, as it is a fundamental logical consequence of the axioms defining that system.

The reason why you say that it will not be eternally provable, is only because you don't know what you are talking about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't deny theism works for most people at present [based on the present psychological state] which is necessary to soothe the inherent and unavoidable inherent existential crisis that general angsts and subliminal pains that need to be relieved.
The acceptance of a God provide immediate relief, i.e. "believe and surrender" and viola the pains disappear almost immediately.

Religion clearly does something that works for people who believe that it does. That is why people like you are a net negative. You are trying to destroy a tool that helps so many people. What exactly is going to help them instead? You have nothing to offer.

I was a theist before and I note it did help me to deal with the inherent existential crisis and the associated angsts then.
The majority are still entrapped by the existential crisis because humans have just evolved with their animal nature being more dominant they do not have higher wisdoms to deal with it, thus they grab the easiest path, i.e. theism.
But a % of humans are evolving above the grasp of their more animal nature to be being more human gradually.
It is with this advancement that I am able to wean myself off theism as Buddhism [Buddha and some others] did 2500 year ago.

Buddhism provides to theory and practices to wean oneself off theism and to manage and modulate the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
btw, I am not a Buddhist per se but adopt the relevant theory and practices along with other secular self-development methodology to deal with the existential crisis.

It is not easy for the present theists to wean off theism as there is a necessary 'cold turkey' phase to go through. So most theists would not even try and I understand that.

In the present, [the pros of theism outweigh its cons] I have recommended those who are in that kind of psychological state of desperation must adopt theism e.g. Christianity and others, but definitely not the evil laden The Religion of Peace; this is only for the present but not the future (next 80 years) [when cons of theism outweigh its pro] when humans are improving to deal with the inherent existential crisis more efficiently.

Christianity is not good, or no longer good at the job. Whatever.
You have to staunchly believe that the tool will work, because otherwise it doesn't.
Islam is incredibly effective at doing exactly that: getting people to believe that it will work for them, and that is precisely why it indeed does.[/quote]
Christianity promised salvation to eternal life, so relieve the existential crisis, so it works.

All Abrahamic theists must enter into a covenant with God where the terms of 'contract' are confined to the main holy texts.
The main moral terms within the Christianity contract is the overriding 'love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek' and the like; meaning no Christianity ought to kill anyone.
While some Christians commit evil [kill humans] that is not in the name of Christ/God but rather on their own personal volition, thus have sinned subject to God's forgiveness if qualify for it.
As such, there is room for Christians to improve toward the ideal of love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek' and the like.

On the other hand, within the TROP, there is a command to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat and to kill wherever the circumstances deem so.
In contrast to Christianity no killing whatsoever, TROP open permission to kill non-believers is open to subjective interpretations and that promote believers to kill non-believers in the name of God which is evident by the
46,596 incidents with fatalities commit in the name of TROP since 911,
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Your word salad does not even seek to address the spiritual "existential" crisis. It does not give hope where there isn't any. That is, however, what people need. I can clearly see that Islam is successful at doing that. That is why I am in favor of its action. Faith helps people survive through difficult times.

My thesis "It is Impossible for God to Be Real" will convince theists they are relying an illusory being to relieve their existential crisis.
Yes, it does not provide strategies to relieve the inherent existential crisis.
To deal with the existential crisis, I would recommend
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
plus other similar secular options.
Note, at present I do not recommend the majority of theist to wean off theism because their present psychological state do not favor weaning off theism. However, any theist who have some sense theism has its cons and also has a high sense of rationality could attempt to wean off theism with the awareness they have to bear with an inevitable period of cold turkey.

Some believers may exaggerate and go around killing people who shit talk Islam, but that is the cost of doing business. It is not possible to precisely fine tune its action or its effect. So, it accidentally sacrifices individuals who are useless anyway. We can try to limit the damage somehow but don't hold your breath.

With the inherent existential crisis and when there is a threat of eternally burning hell at stake, believers will go all the way to please God so they can be assured of eternal life in heaven.
If God promise 10 times the reward if they kill non-believers upon the slightest threat, some % of believers will take this offer seriously to increase the assurance of paradise and eternal life.
The reality is, if only 10% of believers of TROP, that is 150 million of them around the world.
It only took around 20 to do a 911, just imagine 150 millions of potential 911-type-believers.
Even if 1% that is 15 millions and it only take a few influential leaders to lead to rest of evil prone believers to Armageddon.
Believers are promised eternal life in paradise, so they don't give a damn to whatever happen in 'dunya' [دُنْيا] world which is not favorable to believers.

In Islam, dunyā (Arabic: دُنْيا) refers to the temporal world and its earthly concerns and possessions. In the Quran, "dunya" is often paired with the word "life" to underscore the temporary and fleeting nature of the life of this world, as opposed to the eternal realm of the afterlife, known as "akhirah".
According to the Quran, humans and other communities have a limited time on earth before they pass on to the afterlife. In fact, the Quran teaches that everything that exists is temporary and will ultimately fade away. The pursuit of nearness to God is thus emphasized as the ultimate purpose in life, as only God's Being and Essence endure forever.
Prophetic traditions echo the Quranic teaching, emphasizing the importance of the afterlife, or "akhira" over the present world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

Look at how ChatGPT wipes the floor with what you are saying:

ChatGPT: Will Pythagoras' theorem be eternally provable from classical Euclidean geometry?

Yes, Pythagoras' theorem will remain provable within the framework of classical Euclidean geometry as long as the foundational axioms and assumptions of Euclidean geometry are upheld. The theorem is a direct logical consequence of these axioms and forms one of the cornerstones of Euclidean geometry.

Why is it eternally provable?

Axiomatic System: Classical Euclidean geometry is based on a consistent set of axioms, such as the parallel postulate, which define the properties of points, lines, and planes. Pythagoras' theorem is a logical consequence of these axioms.

Timeless Validity: Mathematics, unlike physical sciences, is not contingent upon the physical world. It operates within abstract, idealized systems, and the validity of a theorem within a specific mathematical framework does not change over time.

Logical Deduction: The proof of Pythagoras' theorem involves logical steps derived from Euclidean axioms. As long as these axioms are accepted, the proof remains valid.

Contextual Limitations

While Pythagoras' theorem is eternally valid within Euclidean geometry, it does not necessarily apply in other geometrical contexts:

Non-Euclidean Geometries: In hyperbolic and spherical geometries, the relationships between the sides of a triangle differ, and Pythagoras' theorem does not hold in its classical form.

Physical World: Real-world space, as described by general relativity, is non-Euclidean. Thus, the theorem is not directly applicable in curved spacetime without modifications.

In summary, within the idealized framework of Euclidean geometry, Pythagoras' theorem will remain eternally provable, as it is a fundamental logical consequence of the axioms defining that system.

The reason why you say that it will not be eternally provable, is only because you don't know what you are talking about.

It is because your used the term 'eternally' that ChatGpt went along with your proposal but ChatGpt qualifed:

"While Pythagoras' theorem is eternally valid within Euclidean geometry, it does not necessarily apply in other geometrical contexts:
...
...
"
and it is only applicable.
"within the idealized framework of Euclidean geometry".

The term eternally [Pythagoras' theorem] definitely is not used in the same mode within the theistic framework.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

Look at how ChatGPT wipes the floor with what you are saying:

ChatGPT: Will Pythagoras' theorem be eternally provable from classical Euclidean geometry?

Yes, Pythagoras' theorem will remain provable within the framework of classical Euclidean geometry as long as the foundational axioms and assumptions of Euclidean geometry are upheld. The theorem is a direct logical consequence of these axioms and forms one of the cornerstones of Euclidean geometry.

Why is it eternally provable?

Axiomatic System: Classical Euclidean geometry is based on a consistent set of axioms, such as the parallel postulate, which define the properties of points, lines, and planes. Pythagoras' theorem is a logical consequence of these axioms.

Timeless Validity: Mathematics, unlike physical sciences, is not contingent upon the physical world. It operates within abstract, idealized systems, and the validity of a theorem within a specific mathematical framework does not change over time.

Logical Deduction: The proof of Pythagoras' theorem involves logical steps derived from Euclidean axioms. As long as these axioms are accepted, the proof remains valid.

Contextual Limitations

While Pythagoras' theorem is eternally valid within Euclidean geometry, it does not necessarily apply in other geometrical contexts:

Non-Euclidean Geometries: In hyperbolic and spherical geometries, the relationships between the sides of a triangle differ, and Pythagoras' theorem does not hold in its classical form.

Physical World: Real-world space, as described by general relativity, is non-Euclidean. Thus, the theorem is not directly applicable in curved spacetime without modifications.

In summary, within the idealized framework of Euclidean geometry, Pythagoras' theorem will remain eternally provable, as it is a fundamental logical consequence of the axioms defining that system.

The reason why you say that it will not be eternally provable, is only because you don't know what you are talking about.

Theistic beliefs and doctrines like those of the Abrahamic religions are immutable thus no room for improvements till eternity.

I checked with ChatGpt:

ChatGpt wrote
You are correct that the term "eternally provable," as used in the context of the quoted ChatGPT response, is fundamentally different from the concept of eternity within theism. Here's a breakdown of the distinction:

1. Eternally Provable in Mathematical and Logical Contexts
Meaning: In mathematics, "eternally provable" refers to the timeless validity of a theorem within the specific axiomatic system it belongs to. For example, Pythagoras' theorem is always provable within the framework of Euclidean geometry because it follows logically from the axioms that define that system.
Scope: This concept is restricted to abstract, human-defined systems. It does not imply existence outside of human thought or in a metaphysical sense.
Dependence: The "eternality" of mathematical truths depends on the continued acceptance and coherence of the underlying axioms.

2. Eternity in Theism
Meaning: In theistic contexts, eternity often refers to an unbounded, timeless existence or permanence, typically attributed to a divine being, the soul, or metaphysical truths. It is not limited by human constructs like axiomatic systems.
Scope: Theistic eternity transcends time and space, applying to ultimate reality or the nature of existence beyond temporal or physical limitations.
Dependence: This concept is rooted in metaphysical or theological assertions, not contingent upon human-defined frameworks.

Key Differences [Table]
Aspect ....... Eternally Provable (Math) .....Eternity (Theism)
Domain Abstract, logical frameworks (e.g., geometry) Metaphysical, transcendent
Dependence Defined by axioms and logical systems Independent of human definitions
Temporal Nature Timeless within a specific framework Timeless in an absolute, universal sense
Application Specific to mathematical/logical systems Pertains to ultimate reality or divinity

[godelian]

All Abrahamic theists must enter into a covenant with God where the terms of 'contract' are confined to the main holy texts.

You do not get to say what other people must do.
You do not get to provide advice or interpretation for a religion that is not even yours.
Your mentality is extremely irritating!