chap wrote:Look, you are the guy who introduced the idea of eternity to this thread - aren't you? So go on, tell us clearly what it means.
Just to clarify one thing, Chap, MG is on the hook for defining more than mere eternity.
MG wrote:My point was that a secularist/agnostic is unlikely to at least entertain the possibility that they are living IN and as part of eternity. And will continue in what might be referred to as the eternal now.
IHAQ and myself are not looking for a definition of infinity or eternity from MG, but for a definition of the "eternal now".
MG wrote:It’s like trying to define a heap.
LOL! How cute. MG figures out a way to give nebulous woo of any kind a free pass based on the intractability of the heap problem. If MG wishes to move the goal posts and say the "eternal now" is slippery in the same way a "heap" is slippery, which is to say; as we can't precisely define a heap, we can't precisely define an "eternal now", then fine, we grant his moving of the goal posts. But he is on the hook for providing the reasons an "eternal now" is a slippery idea. Physic's guy explained the the heap problem with laser clarity. It's now MG's turn to explain the "eternal now" problem with the same laser precision.
MG? let's get to work, buddy.
MG asked, pompously:
MG wrote:Would you care to throw out your hard fast definition of eternity/infinity?
Let's review
the standard definitions.
IEP wrote:Looking back over the last 2,500 years of use of the term “infinite,” three distinct senses stand out: actually infinite, potentially infinite, and transcendentally infinite. These will be discussed in more detail below, but briefly, the concept of potential infinity treats infinity as an unbounded or non-terminating process developing over time. By contrast, the concept of actual infinity treats the infinite as timeless and complete. Transcendental infinity is the least precise of the three concepts and is more commonly used in discussions of metaphysics and theology to suggest transcendence of human understanding or human capability.
It's reasonable to assume "eternity" simply means infinite time, with the term "infinite" needing to get locked down according to one of the three proposed modalities of infinity. We've seen that the Mormon scriptures punt and go the transcendental route. But perhaps something has been overlooked? MG will need to weigh his options as that will be the first step towards explaining the problem of the "eternal now".
Let's get back to this:
MG wrote:My point was that a secularist/agnostic is unlikely to at least entertain the possibility that they are living IN and as part of eternity. And will continue in what might be referred to as the eternal now.
I have no problem entertaining the possibility if MG can explain what is meant by "eternal now" with half of the clarity that Physic's Guy explained a "heap". If that's a Herculean task, I understand, and I don't think anyone will think less of MG if he were to refer to an Encyclopedia or other standard work that provides a summary of what is meant by "eternal now". In fact, we'd all probably respect him much more for it.
Atheists notwithstanding, why would a Theist be any more likely to entertain the possibility of living in an "eternal now", if nobody can provide a clue as to what an "eternal now" actually is? Does William Lane Craig think he lives in an "Eternal Now", MG? Do you think Craig is more open to it than I am?