Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Difference Between Eternal & Everlasting

Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 6:11:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
- I have a question for the students of Western Philosophy or Christian Theology. Is there a distinction made between the concepts of eternal & everlasting? I am asking, because the distinction is made in Islamic Thought, particularly Ash'ari Theology. For instance, one can say, the Universe is eternal, but one can not say, it is everlasting. The idea is, one concept implies Time, while the other, doesn't. This distinction basically removes contingency on Time from the given attribute.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:18:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 6:11:37 AM, Yassine wrote:
- I have a question for the students of Western Philosophy or Christian Theology. Is there a distinction made between the concepts of eternal & everlasting? I am asking, because the distinction is made in Islamic Thought, particularly Ash'ari Theology. For instance, one can say, the Universe is eternal, but one can not say, it is everlasting. The idea is, one concept implies Time, while the other, doesn't. This distinction basically removes contingency on Time from the given attribute.
Since time is meaningless without consciousness not sure where the distinction is other than irrelevant semantics. Everlasting is synonymous with eternal in English. Islamic philosophy might have a different idea about the two but not sure why there is actually a differentiation.
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 6:11:37 AM, Yassine wrote:
- I have a question for the students of Western Philosophy or Christian Theology. Is there a distinction made between the concepts of eternal & everlasting? I am asking, because the distinction is made in Islamic Thought, particularly Ash'ari Theology. For instance, one can say, the Universe is eternal, but one can not say, it is everlasting. The idea is, one concept implies Time, while the other, doesn't. This distinction basically removes contingency on Time from the given attribute.

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 7:27:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 6:11:37 AM, Yassine wrote:
- I have a question for the students of Western Philosophy or Christian Theology. Is there a distinction made between the concepts of eternal & everlasting? I am asking, because the distinction is made in Islamic Thought, particularly Ash'ari Theology. For instance, one can say, the Universe is eternal, but one can not say, it is everlasting. The idea is, one concept implies Time, while the other, doesn't. This distinction basically removes contingency on Time from the given attribute.

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

Agreed
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 4:05:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. In John 3:16, Jesus said whoever believes in him will have eternal life, but that doesn't mean they will have always existed with no beginning.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:10:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:18:55 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 2/6/2016 6:11:37 AM, Yassine wrote:
- I have a question for the students of Western Philosophy or Christian Theology. Is there a distinction made between the concepts of eternal & everlasting? I am asking, because the distinction is made in Islamic Thought, particularly Ash'ari Theology. For instance, one can say, the Universe is eternal, but one can not say, it is everlasting. The idea is, one concept implies Time, while the other, doesn't. This distinction basically removes contingency on Time from the given attribute.

Since time is meaningless without consciousness not sure where the distinction is other than irrelevant semantics.

- Language itself is meaningless without consciousness.

Everlasting is synonymous with eternal in English. Islamic philosophy might have a different idea about the two but not sure why there is actually a differentiation.

- I translated the terms in Arabic to their closest English counter-part & I got: eternal & everlasting. They may mean the same thing in English, but the philosophical distinction I am aiming at has to do with contingency on Time & Space.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:13:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

- This distinction might be linguistic, which is irrelevant to this topic on philosophical distinction relating to contingency on Time & Space. To reformulate my question, is there a distinction on the concept of infinity regarding its contingency on Time & Space or not?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:18:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 6:11:37 AM, Yassine wrote:
- I have a question for the students of Western Philosophy or Christian Theology. Is there a distinction made between the concepts of eternal & everlasting? I am asking, because the distinction is made in Islamic Thought, particularly Ash'ari Theology. For instance, one can say, the Universe is eternal, but one can not say, it is everlasting. The idea is, one concept implies Time, while the other, doesn't. This distinction basically removes contingency on Time from the given attribute.

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

+1
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:22:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 4:05:38 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. In John 3:16, Jesus said whoever believes in him will have eternal life, but that doesn't mean they will have always existed with no beginning.

If you go back to earlier english versions such as the Douay-Rheims bible you get everlasting as the english equivalent...
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:27:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 4:05:38 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. In John 3:16, Jesus said whoever believes in him will have eternal life, but that doesn't mean they will have always existed with no beginning.
In that case, he either meant that we actually never had a beginning or he misused the word.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:30:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:13:10 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

- This distinction might be linguistic, which is irrelevant to this topic on philosophical distinction relating to contingency on Time & Space. To reformulate my question, is there a distinction on the concept of infinity regarding its contingency on Time & Space or not?

Is there actually a branch of philosophy based on linguistics?
I don't have a signature. :-)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:03:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:22:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/7/2016 4:05:38 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. In John 3:16, Jesus said whoever believes in him will have eternal life, but that doesn't mean they will have always existed with no beginning.

If you go back to earlier english versions such as the Douay-Rheims bible you get everlasting as the english equivalent...

Then I guess the translators, at least, thought the terms were interchangeable.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 5:54:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:30:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:13:10 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

- This distinction might be linguistic, which is irrelevant to this topic on philosophical distinction relating to contingency on Time & Space. To reformulate my question, is there a distinction on the concept of infinity regarding its contingency on Time & Space or not?

Is there actually a branch of philosophy based on linguistics?

- There is, though irrelevant to the question I asked.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 7:29:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/9/2016 5:54:39 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:30:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:13:10 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:47:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

If something is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.
If something is everlasting, it has no end.
There is a slight difference.

- This distinction might be linguistic, which is irrelevant to this topic on philosophical distinction relating to contingency on Time & Space. To reformulate my question, is there a distinction on the concept of infinity regarding its contingency on Time & Space or not?

Is there actually a branch of philosophy based on linguistics?

- There is, though irrelevant to the question I asked.

Why does it make sense to say the universe is eternal but not to say it is everlasting?
I don't have a signature. :-)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:30:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/9/2016 7:29:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

Why does it make sense to say the universe is eternal but not to say it is everlasting?

- In the sense I was talking about, eternal (in Arabic: Khalid) implies Time, while everlasting (in Arabic: al-Baq'i), doesn't. The Universe being eternal in Time doesn't contradict Islamic Scriptures, it being everlasting (in the sense of being a necessary being), however, does. So, a Muslim may say, the Universe is eternal, but may not say it's everlasting, as only God is.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 6:00:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 1:30:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/9/2016 7:29:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

Why does it make sense to say the universe is eternal but not to say it is everlasting?

- In the sense I was talking about, eternal (in Arabic: Khalid) implies Time, while everlasting (in Arabic: al-Baq'i), doesn't. The Universe being eternal in Time doesn't contradict Islamic Scriptures, it being everlasting (in the sense of being a necessary being), however, does. So, a Muslim may say, the Universe is eternal, but may not say it's everlasting, as only God is.
Sorry. The definition of everlasting uses time so not sure why you claim it doesn't imply time.
Ideology can use universe to describe the physicial and spiritual. Therefore the ,"universe" would be eternal. Saying God is everlasting is saying God had a beginning. That wouldn't be talking about God. But I still say there isn't a distinction. I think you're simple using equivocation or misunderstanding how the words are being applied.
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:12:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 1:30:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/9/2016 7:29:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

Why does it make sense to say the universe is eternal but not to say it is everlasting?

- In the sense I was talking about, eternal (in Arabic: Khalid) implies Time, while everlasting (in Arabic: al-Baq'i), doesn't. The Universe being eternal in Time doesn't contradict Islamic Scriptures, it being everlasting (in the sense of being a necessary being), however, does. So, a Muslim may say, the Universe is eternal, but may not say it's everlasting, as only God is.
Never mind. I'm not familiar with Islamic theology.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 11:26:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 6:00:26 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Sorry. The definition of everlasting uses time so not sure why you claim it doesn't imply time.

- You misunderstood. The terms 'everlasting' & 'eternal' are merely the closest translations of the original Arabic terms 'Baq'i' & 'Khalid, respectively. The original term doesn't imply Time, thus the philosophical distinction intended for the translation wouldn't. My question being, does this philosophical distinction indeed extend to Western philosophy or not?

Ideology can use universe to describe the physicial and spiritual. Therefore the ,"universe" would be eternal. Saying God is everlasting is saying God had a beginning.

- Depends on what you intend to say by 'everlasting'.

That wouldn't be talking about God. But I still say there isn't a distinction.

- OK. There is your answer.

I think you're simple using equivocation or misunderstanding how the words are being applied.

- Um, no.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 11:31:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:12:01 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:30:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/9/2016 7:29:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

Why does it make sense to say the universe is eternal but not to say it is everlasting?

- In the sense I was talking about, eternal (in Arabic: Khalid) implies Time, while everlasting (in Arabic: al-Baq'i), doesn't. The Universe being eternal in Time doesn't contradict Islamic Scriptures, it being everlasting (in the sense of being a necessary being), however, does. So, a Muslim may say, the Universe is eternal, but may not say it's everlasting, as only God is.

Never mind. I'm not familiar with Islamic theology.

- I am more interested in your familiarity with Western or Christian Thought. That is, does this distinction extend to Christian Theology or not?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 11:43:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 11:31:27 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:12:01 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:30:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/9/2016 7:29:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

Why does it make sense to say the universe is eternal but not to say it is everlasting?

- In the sense I was talking about, eternal (in Arabic: Khalid) implies Time, while everlasting (in Arabic: al-Baq'i), doesn't. The Universe being eternal in Time doesn't contradict Islamic Scriptures, it being everlasting (in the sense of being a necessary being), however, does. So, a Muslim may say, the Universe is eternal, but may not say it's everlasting, as only God is.

Never mind. I'm not familiar with Islamic theology.

- I am more interested in your familiarity with Western or Christian Thought. That is, does this distinction extend to Christian Theology or not?

From my experience, Christians use the words interchangeably, so I would say that the distinction does not extend to Christian theology.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 11:49:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 11:43:24 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 11:31:27 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:12:01 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:30:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/9/2016 7:29:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

Why does it make sense to say the universe is eternal but not to say it is everlasting?

- In the sense I was talking about, eternal (in Arabic: Khalid) implies Time, while everlasting (in Arabic: al-Baq'i), doesn't. The Universe being eternal in Time doesn't contradict Islamic Scriptures, it being everlasting (in the sense of being a necessary being), however, does. So, a Muslim may say, the Universe is eternal, but may not say it's everlasting, as only God is.

Never mind. I'm not familiar with Islamic theology.

- I am more interested in your familiarity with Western or Christian Thought. That is, does this distinction extend to Christian Theology or not?

From my experience, Christians use the words interchangeably, so I would say that the distinction does not extend to Christian theology.

- Alright, thanks.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...