How can something sometimes not be eternal? (Jesus Christ, ritual, reject)

[stemann]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

I understand how an infinity concept like this may be a useful tool in mathematics,

Why would mathematics use it as a "tool" if it wasn't a logical concept?

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

but practically speaking it goes to say that whereas that which has a beginning also has an end, that which has no beginning similarly has no end.

Oh yes, practically speaking, mathematics has nothing to do with the real world, or logic. Except that it does. Why are you attempting to separate mathematics from reality? I am aware that it is a metaphysical concept; however, the whole point of it is that it models the real world.

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

The 'has beginning but no end' idea hasn't even a practical basis in logic.

Yes it does. I call it a half-line, wikipedia calls it a 'Ray' (personally I think I am much cleverer than wikipedia, so I will continue to call it a half-line):

Originally Posted by the not-so-clever wikipedia.org

In geometry, a ray starts at one point, then goes on forever in one direction.

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

No matter how many trillions of years some cosmic body exists, we can understand that there is some rate of decay, i.e. even the sun is understood to be temporal.

Some certain thing that begins also ends. Does this prove the general point? No.

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

So the other side of this logic goes to say that if something were to have no beginning, then it would also have no end.

I have shown something can have a beginning but no end. Temporally, the direction of Time itself is arbitrary, therefore something that has no beginning can have an end.

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this pseudo-eternal concept?

You perceive absurdity where there is none.

[standing_on_one_foot]

Originally Posted by stemann

That's what I meant, you see.....

But you can divide infinity by two. That's allowed. It just stays infinity. Even when you difive infinity by two, or three, or a million, it stays infinite (it being a concept, not a number). It's infinite even though it has a starting point (like a ray).

If we define eternal as having no beginning, fine, we can do that, but if we define eternal as merely something lasting an infinite amount of time, it can have a starting point and still be infinite. Dictionary.com gives me both definitions, interestingly enough. So I'm inclined to say the second one isn't absurd.

For the record, there's some debate about whether the universe is infinite. I believe the current thought is that it isn't.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by standing_on_one_foot

But you can divide infinity by two. That's allowed. It just stays infinity. Even when you difive infinity by two, or three, or a million, it stays infinite (it being a concept, not a number). It's infinite even though it has a starting point (like a ray).

If we define eternal as having no beginning, fine, we can do that, but if we define eternal as merely something lasting an infinite amount of time, it can have a starting point and still be infinite. Dictionary.com gives me both definitions, interestingly enough. So I'm inclined to say the second one isn't absurd.

For the record, there's some debate about whether the universe is infinite. I believe the current thought is that it isn't.

Absolutely, I understand your definitions of infinity 100%. Believe me, I have gone over and over ideas of infinity many, many times with myself and others, including my maths teacher, who told me not to think about it too hard.

I think I understand mathematical relationships and operation concerning infinity (and infinitesimally small parts as well, like integration) fairly well, but obviously there are always problems and always will be problems with conceptions of infinity.

I don't know about the universe. I'll wait until I meet a cosmologist.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Well, I can see it either way myself.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Although he was not LDS, I think C.S. Lewis said it best. “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

I see.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Yes, it pertains to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, of which Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat. But I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you're asking me.

Well, you say that our experience here helps us distinguish between good and evil, but on the other hand the Bible explains that knowledge of good and evil is what caused Adam to fall. So this seems contradictory. How are you to understand knowledge of good and evil to be good?

Originally Posted by Katzpur

[i]According to LDS doctrine, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." (D&C 131:7-8)

This is a matter of realization, definitely. It goes to say that when one realizes God as the source of all, all becomes understood as spiritual (spiritual meaning, "relating to God"). Nevertheless, at the same time, a distinction remains between the temporally manifest "material" energy and the eternally manifest "spiritual" energy. Although all energy is essentially one, categories exist for different purposes. This simultaneous oneness and difference also applies to the relationship between God and His energies. In Vedic philosophy this is called 'achintya bheda bheda tattva,' which means 'inconceivably one and different, simultaneously'. God is nondifferent from His energies in that they are an expansion of His own existence, but yet He is a Personality eternally distinct from His energies. The philosophy of monism where all is merged into some homogenous conception ignores these distinctions. So monism and duality should be understood hand in hand, lest we merge Creator into creation and fall back down into material conceptions of life.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Our physical bodies are obviously imperfect. Nevertheless, it is certainly not the goal of any Latter-day Saint to be free from them. We don't see the physical as necessarily inferior to the spiritual, but as complementing it.

Well, by "inferior" it goes to say that while the flesh is weak, the spirit is willing. The flesh is an otherwise dead piece of matter. It is the soul that is actually living. Once the soul departs that flesh, the flesh loses value. So in this way we can understand the comparative position of the soul and the body.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

According to our doctrine, all will be resurrected. This means that every soul that has ever lived will receive a new, immortal body. Furthermore, we believe that the vast, vast majority of all God's children will inherit the kingdom of heaven and receive at least a portion of God's glory. That's a whole other subject, though, so I won't digress at this point.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Well, as I thought I'd explained in my previous post, the "waiting around" does serve a purpose. It is during the period between death and the resurrection that the majority of the former inhabitants of the earth will hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time. As far as being "eligible" for a spiritual body is concerned, we are all elgible by virtue of the fact that we have experienced mortality. The Bible states that, "...as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." All shall live again, but since the circumstances of our lives vary so greatly from each other's, God has made the necessary provisions to enable all to come to the knowledge of His Son's Atonement before the Final Judgment.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

[color=black]You may have misunderstood what I was getting at. I believe that the body in which my spirit now resides will be made perfect at the resurrection. Between now and then, of course it will decay. (Judging from how I feel most days, mine's already started.) When I get a new body, it will not be an entirely different body than the one I have now. As to how that transformation is going to take place, I can't even venture a guess.

I am just saying that your spiritual body will be of an entirely different nature than this material body. They may both appear the same, but one is decaying and the other is eternal. I just can't settle on this idea that souls will wait for their rotting corpses to be spiritualized and raised from the dirt (or ashes, perhaps). I know this is your faith, so it is probably pointless to get into it. Nevertheless, it just seems sort of odd to me. If one is not ready to transcend the material platform of life then they, upon death of the body, will accept another body. That is very reasonable. Otherwise, why only one body? If a person is not qualified to transcend bodily life by the time of death, then another body will be given. I think the key to this is understanding why we take a body at all. Why did we take one physical body? Once we understand why one, we can understand the possibility of more. Of course, the goal is to take that body which is eternal. So I think on this general point, we agree. We must get an eternal body by God's grace. It is just the details of how this works are different between us.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by stemann

Why would mathematics use it as a "tool" if it wasn't a logical concept?

The keyword to note in my statement was "practical". Conceptually we can understand a line that begins but continues forver, but we have not practically seen or in any way experienced such a concept. Granted that one can also say we have not experienced infinity in general, but the difference here is that a beginningless and endless infinity follows from what we have practical experience of. As I explained, that which begins also ends, therefore that which does not begin, does not end.

Originally Posted by stemann

Oh yes, practically speaking, mathematics has nothing to do with the real world, or logic. Except that it does. Why are you attempting to separate mathematics from reality? I am aware that it is a metaphysical concept; however, the whole point of it is that it models the real world.

No. Practically speaking, we have not actually experienced a perpetual line, nor have we experienced anything from which this mathematical concept could consequently be understood as an actually existing entity. It is simply a tool. I am separating reality from concepts that have no basis in reality. The ray hasn't a basis in actual experienced things. It is a mental tool. Everything that begins, ends. It follows from this that if something does not begin, then it also does not end. But the idea of something beginning but not ending is merely a concept.

Originally Posted by stemann

Yes it does. I call it a half-line, wikipedia calls it a 'Ray' (personally I think I am much cleverer than wikipedia, so I will continue to call it a half-line):

Whatever we call it, it doesn't follow from anything we have practical experience of.

Originally Posted by stemann

Some certain thing that begins also ends. Does this prove the general point? No.

Everything we know that begins, we also understand to have an ending. If this is wrong, please tell me something that we know to begin but do not understand that it will ever end. I have never heard of such a thing in our experience.

Originally Posted by stemann

I have shown something can have a beginning but no end. Temporally, the direction of Time itself is arbitrary, therefore something that has no beginning can have an end.

You have shown the concept of something that begins but does not end. That is all.

Originally Posted by stemann

You perceive absurdity where there is none.

Except that the absurdity is actually there. I have practical experience of it.

[blueman]

God did not create us on a piecemeal basis. We were created when we were conceived and God created a triune being (body, soul and spirit) all at once, not in stages. We are not co-eternal with God, meaning we existed with Him from the beginning, but on a prospective basis, we will live eternally as a result of the belief and trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by blueman

God did not create us on a piecemeal basis. We were created when we were conceived and God created a triune being (body, soul and spirit) all at once, not in stages. We are not co-eternal with God, meaning we existed with Him from the beginning, but on a prospective basis, we will live eternally as a result of the belief and trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son.

I have no doubt that you have faith in such. And so it might be pointless to bring reason into this, nevertheless, we know things that begin and they all eventually end. So it goes to say that things that do not begin will also not end. This comprises what is temporal versus what is eternal. The endless beginnings that Christians like yourself promote are, as far as I have seen, a product of interpretation from a lack of explicit explanation. Maybe you can show me where the soul is defined and explained to be a being with a beginning but no end.

[stemann]

Ok, I understand now Paraprakrti that you are talking specifically about reality and the universe in which we live.

First, the only example I can give off the top of my head is one I have copied from page one of this thread (Dr. Seuss eat your heart out):

Originally Posted by Karl R

Point a laser into space. Aim it so it misses any objects (fairly likely if you just aim it randomly, since space is mostly empty). The coherent beam of photons will continue on infinitely. The beam has an origin, but that doesn't mean that it ever stops.

You haven't debated scientifically that this is impossible.

Now:

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

we know things that begin and they all eventually end. So it goes to say that things that do not begin will also not end.

The phrase "things that do not begin" is non-cognitive as the word "things" implies something existent and for something to be existent, it has to begin. I am not trying to defend my other argument by attacking a different one of yours, I just find your reasoning fallacious (to the best of my knowledge).

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

No. Practically speaking, we have not actually experienced a perpetual line, nor have we experienced anything from which this mathematical concept could consequently be understood as an actually existing entity. It is simply a tool. I am separating reality from concepts that have no basis in reality.

I disagree. A perpetual line can exist on a two-dimensional surface wrapped as a sphere, such as the earth (although this is an imperfect sphere). The line simply continues over itself infinitely, as the surface is wrapped in three dimensions.

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

Everything we know that begins, we also understand to have an ending. If this is wrong, please tell me something that we know to begin but do not understand that it will ever end. I have never heard of such a thing in our experience.

According to the people you contest in the OP, the soul is an example of this. I'm sure it can be proven that no physical entity or process can have a beginning but no end, but the soul transcends physicality. Following from this:

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

You have shown the concept of something that begins but does not end. That is all.

The soul is a metaphysical concept. It is not bound by physical constraints. Therefore, if a concept of something beginning but not ending can exist, then the transcendant soul can adhere to this concept.