Ambition is the last refuge of failure.

Imagine one day you were to come across a young man digging a hole in the earth with a shovel.  An inquiry into his actions leads to the conclusion that he is digging his grave.  Likely you would find this intriguing, and would attempt to draw more information from the man.  Suppose the man explained that he wanted the best grave he could create throughout the years of his existence.  The man is literally spending his life preparing the resting place for his dead body.

Would you find this ridiculous?

Yet, throughout human existance, like the man digging his own grave, we have spent our lives preparing for our death.  Many find it necessary to believe in an afterlife, and are willing to sacrifice parts of their earthly lives in order to gain admittance.  Others spend their lives researching various religions, sciences, and beliefs, in order to find something regarding death that they can come to terms with.

At the very root of it, everything in our existence has grown out of our obsession of death.  Humans fear death so much that we have created religion, (a way to either accept death with the hope of some sort of better life,) and science, (a way of postponing death through medicine, or other forms of preservation.)

Why?

Why can't human's just accept that this may be the one and only life we have, and live it accordingly?  Yes, we are afraid of what happens after we die, afraid that there may be no purpose for our existence.  But why allow that fear to dictate the way we live the life that we know for certain we have at this moment?

Why can't we spend our lives simply enjoying being alive?

 

 


Comments (Page 6)
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 
on Jun 11, 2009

Mmm, but if the laws of the universe are...universal, would not God follow them as well? How can something be outside of...existance, or the established...system, so to speak. It would therein imply some sort of spontaneousness...

Also, my deal isn't so much on proving or disproving, but pointing out her reasoning.

on Jun 11, 2009

He is outside the box, outside of time, therefore "eternal

Eternal is a word used in connection with time - unless you're a theologin, then you use it whatever way you want.

on Jun 11, 2009

Eternal is a word used in connection with time... then you use it whatever way you want.

If you can words however you want, they tend to become blurred, and lose their meaning.  So I don't agree with you there. 

The word eternal describes a state in which their is no time.  The opposite of time/cycle/progression.  That is the only way it can be used in connection in time.  Much like "dark" can only be used in connection with "light" as an opposite.

As for an eternal God following universal laws, any dealings within the proverbial box would follow the universal systems/laws, yes.  However since he is outside of the paradigm of time (or box) his existence would not be reliant upon the same rules.

 

on Jun 11, 2009

If you can words however you want, they tend to become blurred, and lose their meaning. So I don't agree with you there.

 

It was actually said in sarcas/jest.

 

As for an eternal God following universal laws, any dealings within the proverbial box would follow the universal systems/laws, yes.

 

No, I'm not talking about within the box. I am talking about in the case that if such laws are universal, then even God would follow them. Even then, if he didn't, there would be a need for some sort of order/structure. 

 

 

The word eternal describes a state in which their is no time. The opposite of time/cycle/progression. That is the only way it can be used in connection in time.

On the contrary:

e⋅ter⋅nal

[ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ): eternal life.
2.perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3.enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4.Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.

***

So, you can say that time is eternal - as in it is endless.

on Jun 11, 2009

No, I'm not talking about within the box. I am talking about in the case that if such laws are universal, then even God would follow them. Even then, if he didn't, there would be a need for some sort of order/structure.

 

To expand upon that, since there would be the need for some sort of law/order/structure, it could be said that these laws were later passed down and our laws.

 

 

on Jun 11, 2009

You have to think outside the box here Alderic.

If we take God out of the equation, then there is nothing in our universe that is eternal.  There is always a beginning and an end of everything, no matter how long that takes.  It may seem eternal to us, since our lifespans are extraordinarily short compared to stars, or the life cycle of a planet, but there is a beginning and an end.  In this way, yes, there is always some sort of creator.

However, the God that you and Lula are arguing is an eternal God that created the universe.  This means that this God would be outside the paradigm of time, as he created it.

Whenever he deals with the universe on any level, yes, he would work according to the natural/universal laws.  (Did you miss where I said that before?)

However, being outside the paradigm of time, he is not restricted to having a beginning, because there is no beginning in terms of the eternal.

As for the word eternal, alright yes, I give it to you that it can be used as an "infinite" amount, however (per the argument you introduced with Lula) if everything has a creator, then everything, including time, would have a beginning, making it not eternal, as eternity has no beginning or end.

So I will stick with my description of eternal in this discussion as being the non-existence of time.

 

on Jun 11, 2009

As for the word eternal, alright yes, I give it to you that it can be used as an "infinite" amount, however (per the argument you introduced with Lula) if everything has a creator, then everything, including time, would have a beginning, making it not eternal, as eternity has no beginning or end.

Granted.

 

f we take God out of the equation, then there is nothing in our universe that is eternal. There is always a beginning and an end of everything, no matter how long that takes. It may seem eternal to us, since our lifespans are extraordinarily short compared to stars, or the life cycle of a planet, but there is a beginning and an end. In this way, yes, there is always some sort of creator.

However, the God that you and Lula are arguing is an eternal God that created the universe. This means that this God would be outside the paradigm of time, as he created it.

Whenever he deals with the universe on any level, yes, he would work according to the natural/universal laws. (Did you miss where I said that before?)

However, being outside the paradigm of time, he is not restricted to having a beginning, because there is no beginning in terms of the eternal.

I think the biggest problem is that Lula and I are arguing from two very different positions/perspectives.

 

*shrugs* To each their own.

on Jun 11, 2009

 

If we take God out of the equation, then there is nothing in our universe that is eternal.

Can you prove that?

 

However, the God that you and Lula are arguing is an eternal God that created the universe. This means that this God would be outside the paradigm of time, as he created it.

 

There's still the question, however, considering most christian's don't beleive in the big bang or spontaneous life (not the right word, but work with me...). If life didn't just happen, then that would mean it needed a creator - according to/based on Christianity/Bible, etc. So, the question is...by their own beliefs...where did God come from? If there cannot be such a thing as spontaneous life or whatever....then...*gestures*..what gives?

If we take God out of the equation, then there is nothing in our universe that is eternal. There is always a beginning and an end of everything, no matter how long that takes.

Is there really? What about many concepts in Buddhism, such as rebirth? What if the beginning/middle/end is merely in the physical form?

However, being outside the paradigm of time, he is not restricted to having a beginning, because there is no beginning in terms of the eternal.

Then what is he restricted to? If we accept that his realm is of a different build/structure (or none), then that leads us to the point that, yes in fact, things can exist without structure of any sort.

 

I think my friend Ryan said it best, "The only viable option when it comes the questions concerning, apart from running around in every direction like a crazed lunatic, is simply saying 'I don't know.'"

 

 

on Jun 11, 2009

If we take God out of the equation, then there is nothing in our universe that is eternal. There is always a beginning and an end of everything, no matter how long that takes. It may seem eternal to us, since our lifespans are extraordinarily short compared to stars, or the life cycle of a planet, but there is a beginning and an end. In this way, yes, there is always some sort of creator.

Yes, excellent reasoning.

However, the God that you and Lula are arguing is an eternal God that created the universe. This means that this God would be outside the paradigm of time, as he created it.

Yes, absolutely true.

Whenever he deals with the universe on any level, yes, he would work according to the natural/universal laws. (Did you miss where I said that before?)

Well, God is in complete control of all the natural and universal laws, and occasionally He does things that go outside them, like Noe's Flood and when Christ performed certain miracles, like raising Lazurus from the dead or changing water into wine at the wedding at Cana.

However, being outside the paradigm of time, he is not restricted to having a beginning, because there is no beginning in terms of the eternal.

Yes.

As for the word eternal, alright yes, I give it to you that it can be used as an "infinite" amount, however (per the argument you introduced with Lula) if everything has a creator, then everything, including time, would have a beginning, making it not eternal, as eternity has no beginning or end.

Well said.

So I will stick with my description of eternal in this discussion as being the non-existence of time.

God Who is Infinite First Cause, created all that exists, visible and invisible (angels), including space, matter and time. It is from Genesis that we've come to understand time in terms of 7 days being one week. That's way cool.  

on Jun 11, 2009

I think I'm going to call this debate quits on my part; My points still stand though. Time to go home and get some sleep, then prepare for graduation.

on Jun 11, 2009

We "Evolved" from what; from who? My genes go back to Adam and Eve....and since there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned against God...there couldn't have been any previous ancestors...animal, human or otherwise.

post #65

First off, that's your opinion - history and science proove otherwise. As to answer your question: Primates. I do have a question though - How do you know that Adam and Eve were not lower/past form of Primate?

Only Hollywood and pseudo science think there was life before Adam and Eve. Neither Adam nor Eve ever said "Papa" or "Mama" to a primate. The fossil record has not produced the missing link.

Adam and Eve didn't come from primates becasue the Bible describes that Creator God made each one according to his own "kind". And the only changes that have come about involve changes within kind. Modern science of molecular genetics tells us beyond doubt that no crossover of genes beyond "kind" can occur naturally in the amount that would have had to take place over eons of time to produce these in between forms. If this occurred there would be loads of fossils but there are none.

Modern genetics confirms the accuracy of taxonomy not postulated evolutionary sequences. It confirms systematics not phylogeny. It confirms Linnaeus, not Darwin.

Theologically, I know that Adam and Eve didn't come from primates because all humans are made in the image and likeness of God and thus have a very distinctive character centering in his soul which is directly created by God and not evoluted.

At the very moment of conception when the sperm fertiles the egg, God breathes life (or a soul) into that person. It's the soul that is life itself. Remove the soul and we die.

on Jun 11, 2009

Time to go home and get some sleep, then prepare for graduation.

Good for you. Congratulations!

 

on Jun 12, 2009

Though you have "called the debate quits," I am going to respond anyway.

1. We are talking about the Christian belief in the God as he is described in the Bible, (as being eternal).  This OF COURSE doesn't factor in buddhism, taoism, etc. 

2. As for the "inside/outside" the box thing, I don't think it's really clicking for you.  There doesn't need to be a structure outside of the box that is anything remotely like ours.  All I am saying is that time (which, in this argument,) God created.  So he existed before time, and is not restricted by it.  So there is not a need for a beginning/creation.

3. Congratulations on your graduation. 

on Jun 12, 2009

There doesn't need to be a structure outside of the box that is anything remotely like ours. All I am saying is that time (which, in this argument,) God created. So he existed before time, and is not restricted by it. So there is not a need for a beginning/creation.

Re: your use of the word "need". Eternal and Unchangeable God doesn't "need". God has a Perfect and Holy Will...He willed Creation and thus "a beginning" of time, space and matter into being.

1. We are talking about the Christian belief in the God as he is described in the Bible, (as being eternal). This OF COURSE doesn't factor in buddhism, taoism, etc.

The one Holy Almighty God described in the Bible factors out Buddhism, Taoism, and all the other pantheistic religions.

on Jun 12, 2009

Yes Lula... that has been my point all along...

 

7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7