From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion,nz.soc.religion
Date: Thursday, 11 March 1999 10:13
Subject: Re: Some hard questions for Able

In aus.religion.christian Able <> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 1999 22:23:47 GMT, Chris Ho-Stuart <>
> wrote:
>
> >In aus.religion.christian Able <> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:19:05 +1300, "Andy Bearsley"
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Angelique wrote in message <7c5c0>...
> >> >>25 billion lights .... further then we will ever go
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Is now a bad time to mention scientists have used quantum
entanglement to
> >> >teleport the properties of one beam of light to another?
> >>
> >> Andy it is a most inappropriate time to talk about Startrek.
> >> I am trying to get my mind around the concept of Eternity past.
> >> Eternity present and future Eternity. Do you realise there must be
> >> such a thing as Eternity past..because we are here.
> >> Could somebody who knows there is no God , please explain Eternity
> >> past?It is just a known observable fact. Chris Ho-Stuart ..where are
> >> you.
> >
> >Right here. All available evidence suggests powerfully that time
> >is bounded in the past: but on the other hand it is an area where
> >we can positively expect surprises in store.
> >
> >There certainly is no known observable fact of eternity past.
> >This is misuse of the terms "known", "observable" and "fact".
>
>  I agree but you are  being pedantic again Chris.
> It is a technique you use to avoid the answers.

No. I am addressing the point directly. Your question is explicitly
founded on a weak premise. It is not avoidance to deal with that.
It is essential to get to the heart of the matter.

I am happy to discuss this, but I would appreciate your
presumption that I am trying my best in good faith.

"Eternity Past" is not an known observable fact -- it is a phrase
that expresses an idea which has no connection with the real world.

It is explained as an extrapolation of our normal experience
way beyond the point that it is a useful guide.

No more explanation is needed or indicated. It is simply not
a "real" description which requires explanation.

> It is as much a concept as Eternity future, a concept that is very
> easily grasped.

What is it that you want explained? You ask for an explanation
of eternity past. The explanation is that there is no such thing;
it is an extraploation of normal experience beyond its applicable
scope.

Are you asking for an explanation of eternity future? Well, there
may be no such thing either. The universe may be closed. Or perhaps
not: maybe there are eventlines in space-time that extend indefinitely
into the future.

> >It is very hard for people to get out of the conception of time
> >as the inevitable backdrop in which events take place.
>
> Does that include you?

Of course.

Thinking about space-time and the universe is fun, but unless
grounded in disciplined and detailed understanding of some very
difficult mathematics and physics it is inevitably going to be
off base.

I have made an effort in this in the past; but I am an amateur.
I've read up on tensors and general relativity; and I have just a
little fraction of the background that underlies ideas like curved
space, and bounded space-time and singularities, and so on.

I would dearly love to quote John Polkinghorne at this point. I'll
bet Rowland would know of him... Polkinghorne is an English physicist
with a reasonably good international reputation in cosmological
physics. He has since become a priest, and has a (surprisingly)
traditional or orthodox theology. He has a considerable interest
in the dialog between faith and science, and you might like some
of his books.

Polkinghorne says that as a cosmologist, he *often* received
ideas and suggestions from people who had thought about time
space and eternity and the universe, and who had come up with
ingenious explanatory ideas.

ALL of them were totally worthless.

> >It is a
> >useful abstraction for our normal experience -- but our normal
> >experience is not necessarily a good guide to the the rest of
> >the universe.
>
> You did not answer the question Chris.

The question was to explain "eternity past". The above is the
explanation.

Best wishes -- Chris