Philosophy Now Forum

Ned wrote:

thedoc wrote:Forever is a long period of time. Eternity is not forever.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foreverCached

for·ev·er (fôr-ĕv′ər, fər-) adv. 1. For everlasting time; eternally: No one can live forever. 2. At all times; incessantly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eternityCached

e·ter·ni·ty (ĭ-tûr′nĭ-tē) n. pl. e·ter·ni·ties. 1. Time without beginning or end; infinite time.

There is no passing of time in eternity, there is no time in eternity.

How do you know it for a fact?
What is the source, the reliability, and the limit of your 'knowledge'?

How do you define 'time'?

Your definitions are incorrect, according to me. It is incorrect to use time to define eternity, and it is incorrect to use eternity to define time. You shouldn't have two words that mean the same thing interchangeably, that forever and eternity are different indicate two different meanings. Apparently the writers of the dictionaries you referenced, were just a bit confused. I am the source for my own knowledge, and I am quite reliable, just ask my grandchildren.

In Physics, time is defined by the measuring instructions you use: the clocks.

Time, as measured by synchronized clocks, can show different values for observers on a straight line, constant speed motion, relative to each other.

We can talk only about the current local time (what our local clock is showing) or a time interval, which is the difference between two readings of our local clock.

The concept of ‘absolute time’ died with Newton, once Einstein cleared up the concept for us.

Any other concept of time (such as forever and eternity) are totally meaningless to a scientific mind, trained in critical thinking.

Sorry, doc, but we are not speaking the same language!

Ned wrote: Sorry, doc, but we are not speaking the same language!

It wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened. I think my problem is not being able to explain myself clearly all the time. Which is odd, because I always know what I mean.

I do try to be careful with my use of language, but I will concede that in some areas I am a bit out of date. Many years ago I watched a series on the local PBS station called "communicating with Nancy Stern" and she told this story.

"A man walked into a bank and was rather shabbily dressed. Most of the tellers knew him, but this day he went to the window of a new teller who had never seen him before. He handed her a withdrawal slip for a rather large amount of money, (he had a much larger balance in the bank). The teller looked at him, looked at the slip and back at him and asked, "Sir, can you identify yourself?" He picked up her brass name plate, polished it a bit with his sleeve, looked at it and said, "Yep, that's me alright."

thedoc wrote: I am the source for my own knowledge

It means that either you are 'god', or you are trying to get out of the swamp by pulling on your own hair.

thedoc wrote:"A man walked into a bank and was rather shabbily dressed. Most of the tellers knew him, but this day he went to the window of a new teller who had never seen him before. He handed her a withdrawal slip for a rather large amount of money, (he had a much larger balance in the bank). The teller looked at him, looked at the slip and back at him and asked, "Sir, can you identify yourself?" He picked up her brass name plate, polished it a bit with his sleeve, looked at it and said, "Yep, that's me alright."

And, pray, please tell what this has got to do with the topic at hand?

Ned wrote:

thedoc wrote:"A man walked into a bank and was rather shabbily dressed. Most of the tellers knew him, but this day he went to the window of a new teller who had never seen him before. He handed her a withdrawal slip for a rather large amount of money, (he had a much larger balance in the bank). The teller looked at him, looked at the slip and back at him and asked, "Sir, can you identify yourself?" He picked up her brass name plate, polished it a bit with his sleeve, looked at it and said, "Yep, that's me alright."

And, pray, please tell what this has got to do with the topic at hand?

The use of language, it's important to use words correctly, to be correctly understood.

Ned wrote:

thedoc wrote: I am the source for my own knowledge

It means that either you are 'god', or you are trying to get out of the swamp by pulling on your own hair.

Or lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps. Wouldn't be the first time.

thedoc wrote:

Ned wrote:

thedoc wrote:"A man walked into a bank and was rather shabbily dressed. Most of the tellers knew him, but this day he went to the window of a new teller who had never seen him before. He handed her a withdrawal slip for a rather large amount of money, (he had a much larger balance in the bank). The teller looked at him, looked at the slip and back at him and asked, "Sir, can you identify yourself?" He picked up her brass name plate, polished it a bit with his sleeve, looked at it and said, "Yep, that's me alright."

And, pray, please tell what this has got to do with the topic at hand?

The use of language, it's important to use words correctly, to be correctly understood.

OK, I am all for clear definitions of words.

Can you define the words 'eternity', 'forever' and 'time', so your definitions satisfy the requirements for meaningful definitions?

The definition has to:

1./ be based on observed and verified phenomena
2./ it can not be circular (containing references to itself)
3./ it has to be placed in the context of existing human knowledge
4./ it can not use undefined words/concepts
5./ it cannot contain contradictions

If you disagree with any of these requirements, then we have nothing more to talk about on this subject.

thedoc wrote:

Ned wrote:

thedoc wrote: I am the source for my own knowledge

It means that either you are 'god', or you are trying to get out of the swamp by pulling on your own hair.

Or lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps. Wouldn't be the first time.

Please show me a documented case when this happened?

You also need to convince me about the reliability of the document (not from the bible, please)..

Ned wrote: doc, I was just making good-natured fun of you -- don't take it too seriously!

This I agree with, and I won't.

Ned wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Ned wrote: It means that either you are 'god', or you are trying to get out of the swamp by pulling on your own hair.

Or lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps. Wouldn't be the first time.

Please show me a documented case when this happened?

You also need to convince me about the reliability of the document (not from the bible, please)..

The Key word in all of the above is "Trying".

PS, I kind of like the idea of being God.

thedoc wrote:The Key word in all of the above is "Trying".

Trying what?

I'd like to step in here to add that I personally used the term eternal in the endless time sense, as I believe I've implied it. That was my gist anyways. I also posted the thread outside the Religion thread to avoid too many direct issues, that others not of a particular ilk may include their thoughts without being shut down for their beliefs, or not.

Having said that, I realize that thedoc stated a legitimate issue with the term eternity, having two possible meanings; that of endless time, and that of timelessness. For the sake of allowing this thread to continue as I meant it, but with acknowlegement to Doc's view, I will accept Jessie Morrel's argument for the endless time view of which I meant. It is here:

http://www.libraryoftheology.com/writin ... orrell.pdf

Is this acceptable to you, Doc, that the thread may move on with it's intent?

OK, I am out of here. Go ahead, doc, have at it!

Dalek Prime wrote:I'd like to step in here to add that I personally used the term eternal in the endless time sense, as I believe I've implied it. That was my gist anyways. I also posted the thread outside the Religion thread to avoid too many direct issues, that others not of a particular ilk may include their thoughts without being shut down for their beliefs, or not.

Having said that, I realize that thedoc stated a legitimate issue with the term eternity, having two possible meanings; that of endless time, and that of timelessness. For the sake of allowing this thread to continue as I meant it, but with acknowlegement to Doc's view, I will accept Jessie Morrel's argument for the endless time view of which I meant. It is here:

http://www.libraryoftheology.com/writin ... orrell.pdf

Is this acceptable to you, Doc, that the thread may move on with it's intent?

That is certainly acceptable, if that is the consensus of those members who wish to participate. I will add, when able. Just to clarify my own position, One of the points that comes up is that Eternity is usually used in reference to Heaven, and I do not view Heaven as time going on endlessly. My interpretation is that in Heaven there is no time, Heaven is a state of timelessness. If that is the accepted definition, that Heaven is eternity, in the sense of time going on endlessly, so be it.