I understood that you are using the term that is familiar to you. I assert the same for my own use of eternal.
I asked what you mean by "eternal," and you gave me a bucketful of alternatives, as if your point was that different people mean different things at different times. Maybe I misinterpreted. Maybe I just spaced.
I do remember you recently referring to something like "number six," but not in a context that tipped me off to the possibility that you were trying to reference the sixth definition in a previously given list. I apologize for not understanding.
I now think that you are giving, "6. ...outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless," as your definition of "eternal." Can you expound or explicate? I'd like to know what you think that means.
So why is it the case that you get to assume (not reason) that your “familiar use” is right and mine is wrong?
Yours isn't wrong. Yours was unknown. Maybe that is in part because you were previously, or intermittently taking the position that gods existed before time. Are you now abandoning that position in favor of this timeless thing?
I was addressing the reasoning we each had to be using different ….familiar “uses.” And you faulted me for doing that, in favor of just assuming you were right and I was wrong.
If I did that, I was wrong. I
thought I was beating a definition out of you because you were uncooperatively keeping it a secret.
So can we reason this out or are do we just have to accept your familiar use?
You are the affirmative. You have the burden of proof. You get to carry that burden in words of your choice.
On the other hand, the word you have chosen is problematic, and I don't have the equivalent of "allaverse" and "partaverse" handy to distinguish between the more common meaning and the meaning that I don't yet understand.
But we can proceed with the discussion.
So….
I contend that you over restricted d1……above… “1. without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting” and were completely unaware of d6….. “6. Philosophy and Theology
outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless”
Not unaware. Impatient, rather.
I'm used to Christians saying that god goes back in time as far as time goes, and then, at that point, he does some inexplicable thing like turning at right angles to time, and somehow having an infinitely continuing regression of cause and effect that happens without any time passing.
But you took the contrary position that time goes back only as far as the big bang, but that things happened before that anyway. As I said earlier, in my experience, you're the only one who ever did this.
So, in my perception, (a) were not on the timelessness bandwagon, and (b) you resented it when I provided your arguments for you so that I could refute them. So I've been trying to get you to see the conflict between a
timely eternity and a beginning of time.
I reasoned “exsiting through all time” to mean time is a subset of the eternal. Clearly supported by d6.
I'm not with you. Time is supposed to be a subset of timeless?
I don’t think you were ever truly “familiar” with the theistic reasoning here, hence your assumed “use.” Thus why I continually referenced the history of this reasoning. Not in any way to proclaim that I’m smarter than you. (Sorry about that unintended perception.
) But to sincerely support that my position was common and point out that I’m not making this up.
Forget it. Not a problem. Though I think you often overstate your case about how much historical people agreed with your current position.
Theism would not make sense, or even exist, if the eternal was restricted to time.
Case in point.