• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is religious eternity infinite? Or merely protracted, but finite?

The religious concept of "afterlife" is often presented as a long, long time.

But is the religious concept of eternity intended to be infinite? Time without end?

Infinite time is a very long time, particularly for a sentient being.

And one in "Heaven" would be exposed to a billion trillion eons; and as a percentage of infinite time, it would not yet have begun. A billion trillion is zero% of infinity.

The Topic Question:
I "eternity" as religion presents it, intended as infinite?
Or is it merely an indefinitely long time, until ... ? Judgement Day?

And then what?

Meanwhile astrophysicists that used to expect "the big crunch", now know that our universe is not merely expanding.

BUT !!

The rate of the expansion is accelerating.
Thus any "big crunch" (the opposite end of the Big Bang) would seem unlikely.

Instead astrophysicists expect cosmic heat death, the state of the cosmos after the energy flux in the cosmos drops to zero; when there are no longer stars which can maintain an energy gradient to sustain life.

How will that affect those in Heaven & Hell?

- Not affect them at all?

- Coincide with Judgement Day, or some other religious stage?

- other?

Stop being so logical. There is no logic in any afterlife no less an infinite one. As far as the universe is concerned it now appears that all matter will eventually be sucked into the black holes at the center of every galaxy and those black holes will be sucked into another big black hole leaving nothingness....or maybe another "Big Bang".
 
im #51

You've caused me to wonder:

- If Heaven is reserved for only the good, and
- Hell reserved for those unworthy of Heaven,
then could it be that any afterlife at all is reserved only for those that believe it, or are willing to accept it?

On the black hole thing:
For many decades we've know the cosmos was expanding.

BUT !!

Astrophysicists simply presumed (without checking) that the rate of expansion was slowing down, due to gravitational braking.
Only very recently did they actually measure it, and discover that the rate of expansion is increasing.

SO !!

While it was presumed that the first thing in our cosmos was the big bang, and
the last thing in our universe would be the big crunch;
turns out, perhaps not.

Perhaps the debris from our scattering cosmos will collide with similar debris from adjacent cosmoses.

In any case, before any of that: cosmic heat death.

The stars will all burn out; energy flux will be but an historic phenomenon, and the cosmos, and all within it will be very cold, and very dark.
 
im #51

You've caused me to wonder:

- If Heaven is reserved for only the good, and
- Hell reserved for those unworthy of Heaven,
then could it be that any afterlife at all is reserved only for those that believe it, or are willing to accept it?

On the black hole thing:
For many decades we've know the cosmos was expanding.

BUT !!

Astrophysicists simply presumed (without checking) that the rate of expansion was slowing down, due to gravitational braking.
Only very recently did they actually measure it, and discover that the rate of expansion is increasing.

SO !!

While it was presumed that the first thing in our cosmos was the big bang, and
the last thing in our universe would be the big crunch;
turns out, perhaps not.

Perhaps the debris from our scattering cosmos will collide with similar debris from adjacent cosmoses.

In any case, before any of that: cosmic heat death.

The stars will all burn out; energy flux will be but an historic phenomenon, and the cosmos, and all within it will be very cold, and very dark.

It was surprising to find that the universe is expanding. It's was further a surprise to find later that the expansion is accelerating. These revelations came about when advancing technology made them possible, not for any lack of trying as you seem to imply.

Also, the big crunch was not presumed. It was not known which of several possibilities the future of expansion would take. This in turn depended on how much stuff the universe contained. Not enough stuff and the universe would slow down but never quite stop expanding, slow down to an exact balance between expansion and contraction, or slow down, pause and then contract to a big crunch if more than enough stuff were present.

With the finding (by measuring many close and very far distant type 1A supernovae) it is now understood that the expansion will continue essentially forever, eliminating two of the former possibilities. A "dark energy" is presumed to be driving the accelerating expansion, which overtook gravitation on the largest scale as the primary force in only the past 5 billion years or so (the universe is 13.8 billion years old).

None of this calls the Big Bang into question.
 
Last edited:
"as you seem to imply." R7 #53
One of two things is true.

a) Either the discovery of the accelerating expansion occurred the femtosecond the scientific capacity to discover it was manifest, or

b) there was a lag time.

If you know anything about science, or human nature you'll know that the "a" option is not likely.
"Also, the big crunch was not presumed." R7
By whom?
The global community of scientists is an absolute solid monolith without any ideological diversity?

If the presumption about the expanding universe was that gravitational braking was slowing the expansion,
then what other POSSIBLE outcome could have resulted, than a big crunch?

It's not rhetoric. TELL ME !!

After a progressively slowing expansion comes a progressively accelerating* contraction.
"It was not known which of several possibilities the future of expansion would take. This in turn depended on how much stuff the universe contained. Not enough stuff and the universe would slow down but never quite stop expanding, slow down to an exact balance between expansion and contraction, or slow down, pause and then contract to a big crunch if more than enough stuff were present."
Proving my point you've tried to refute.

I don't recall having asserted there was unanimity.
Which of the 3 prevailed, 33.3%+ I can't prove. But the sources I've read generally overlooked the first 2 you've cited.

* I'm using the word "accelerating" in a way most astrophysicists would recoil at. I'm fully aware of the astrophysical definition of "accelerate", to change velocity.
But at a layman's site, in a layman's thread, I'll bend to terrestrial appetites. No offense intended.
 
Back
Top Bottom