Can eternity be explained?

[placebofactor]

The difficulties science has explaining how life began reminds me of a person who wears glasses, pushes them to the top of his forehead, and ten minutes later is going nuts trying to locate them. Concerning life and how it began should be obvious that there has to be an architect, a designer, a first cause, and life is the effect of that first cause. What stumps most people, both highly educated and uneducated, is the word “eternal” as in an eternal being. A concept so far above our understanding, only by faith can we trust it, and never understand it.

Science fumbling for answers while the truth rests plainly above its own eyes. It captures the irony of a discipline that can split atoms and map galaxies, yet stumbles over the most foundational question: why is there anything at all?

The concept of an eternal being, uncaused, unbounded, outside of time, is not just intellectually challenging; it’s existentially humbling. It confronts the limits of human reason and forces a choice: either dismiss the mystery or bow before it.

Science excels in many fields. It can describe effects, such as gravity curves space, that DNA encodes life, and that light bends around stars. But it falters when asked about first causes: Why does gravity exist? Why is DNA structured to preserve life? And why is there a universe at all?
The deeper science goes, the more it relies on unprovable axioms, constants, laws, and probabilities that are accepted because they work, not because they explain.

The word eternal is where logic hits a wall. We think in terms of beginnings and endings, measure everything by time, decay, and change, but eternity is outside of all that, no beginning, no end, no succession of moments. Scripture doesn’t try to explain eternity, it declares it:

Psalms 90:2, “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”
Jesus said, Revelation 22:13, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.”
Jesus also said, John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am”

These are ontological claims. These verses assert that God is, not because He began, but because He always was. So why does it stump the educated and uneducated alike? Because eternity defies empirical testing. Eternity cannot be measured, it defies philosophical containment, it cannot be defined, and we cannot grasp it, so we’re left with faith, not blind faith, but a reasoned trust in a reality that transcends comprehension.
Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.”

[Consocius]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

The challenge with regard to understanding what eternity and the eternal in the Sacred Scripture is, arises when the eternity and thus God, being Eternal, are from time, and not from state. There are similar problems, when spirituals matters are attempted to be understood as the material ones.

[Capbook]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

The challenge with regard to understanding what eternity and the eternal in the Sacred Scripture is, arises when the eternity and thus God, being Eternal, are from time, and not from state. There are similar problems, when spirituals matters are attempted to be understood as the material ones.

I've come to consult Bible Lexicon hoe they define "eternal and eternity."
Hope this helps.

Mat 19:16  R1And someoneG1520 cameG4334 to Him and saidG3004, "TeacherG1320, whatG5101 goodG18 thingG18 shall I doG4160 that I may obtainG2192 R2eternalG166 lifeG2222?"

G166
αἰώνιος aiōnios
Thayer Definition:
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be

2Pe 3:18  but growG837 in the graceG5485 and R1knowledgeG1108 of our R2LordG2962 and SaviorG4990 JesusG2424 ChristG5547. R3To Him be the gloryG1391, bothG2532 nowG3568 and to the dayG2250 of eternityG165. AmenG281. 

G165
αἰών aiōn
Thayer Definition:
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity

[Consocius]

for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity[/color][/i]

Yes, it is another example of the limitations of the dics. For they do not address the spiritual things, but only natural, or they address the spiritual things merely naturally, thinking analogically of the immensity/infiniteness of God as the Infiniteness as to space, and thus of eternity as infiniteness as to time. Though for them to think of the infinity as to space is more challenging, for the absurdity of it can be more easily seen.

[Capbook]

for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity[/color][/i]

Yes, it is another example of the limitations of the dics. For they do not address the spiritual things, but only natural, or they address the spiritual things merely naturally, thinking analogically of the immensity/infiniteness of God as the Infiniteness as to space, and thus of eternity as infiniteness as to time. Though for them to think of the infinity as to space is more challenging, for the absurdity of it can be more easily seen.

May we know your definition of the word "spiritual" Consocius?

[Consocius]

May we know your definition of the word "spiritual" Consocius?

There are different definitions according to a some contexts, and here is one of them:

"...That every least thing in man, from its use, is a man, does not fall into the natural idea as it does into the spiritual; in the spiritual idea man is not a person, but a use; for the spiritual idea is apart from an idea of person, as it is apart from an idea of matter, space, and time; therefore when one sees another in heaven, he sees him indeed as a man, but he thinks of him as a use. An angel also appears in face according to the use in which he is, and affection for the use makes the life of the face. From all this it can be seen that every good use is in form a man."

[placebofactor]

[Replying to Consocius in post #6]

Eternity is not “time going on forever” but a state of being outside time. When people read Scripture and assume eternity is just “a very long time,” they misunderstand the nature of God. This same confusion happens when people try to understand spiritual realities using material-world logic.

Why this makes sense! In theology, time and eternity are fundamentally different categories. God is often described as atemporal, meaning not bound by past, present, or future. The difficulty in understanding eternity in Scripture arises when we treat eternity and therefore God not as a state beyond time but as an extension of time. Similar misunderstandings occur when we try to interpret spiritual realities as though they were material ones.

Eternity is a word and is meaningless because it stands outside of everything we know and understand. All I can say about eternity is that it has no beginning and no end, that's it. God is eternal, his word is eternal, and neither God nor his Word has a beginning or end. Whatever does exist and whatever is known and understood by mortals does not stand in eternity but in time, and time begins for us in Genesis 1:1.

So eternity is a term that points to something beyond human categories and can only be described negatively. It has no beginning, no end, and no succession of moments. So, whatever exists and is known by mortals does not stand in eternity but in time. Creation is temporal; God is not. Time is a creature, not a divine attribute. What do I mean by 'time is a creature?" It means time itself is something God created, not something that exists independently or eternally alongside God. It’s a way of saying, time is part of creation, just like matter, space, light, and life.

[Capbook]

May we know your definition of the word "spiritual" Consocius?

There are different definitions according to a some contexts, and here is one of them:

"...That every least thing in man, from its use, is a man, does not fall into the natural idea as it does into the spiritual; in the spiritual idea man is not a person, but a use; for the spiritual idea is apart from an idea of person, as it is apart from an idea of matter, space, and time; therefore when one sees another in heaven, he sees him indeed as a man, but he thinks of him as a use. An angel also appears in face according to the use in which he is, and affection for the use makes the life of the face. From all this it can be seen that every good use is in form a man."

Is this a Biblical definition or man's definition outside the Bible?
As theistic spirituality focuses on a personal relationship with God based from the Word of God.

[Consocius]

[Replying to Capbook in post #8]

To be able to understand whether something is merely human, thus coming from man's own intelligence, or whether it is the Divine Truth with a certain man, thus coming from the Lord, when he enlightenes the mind to see that in the Word or flowing out of the Word, a person needs to look to the Lord Jesus Christ, and shun evils as sins, and out of the affection for truth for the sake of truth and good of life. Apart from this it is hard to see that, if at all possible, and the various opinions of the men, councils can be taken as almost Divine or Biblical on the merely natural grounds of tradition or authority and the very truths can be denied. For instance, the faith in the Lord, expressed by Peter in the Gospels, appeared to the learned, scribes, acamedicians of those times as not Biblical, for they did not know where it comes from, but to others, who looked to the Lord, and to the heavenly kingdom, and not only to this one, it appeared valid.

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #8]

To be able to understand whether something is merely human, thus coming from man's own intelligence, or whether it is the Divine Truth with a certain man, thus coming from the Lord, when he enlightenes the mind to see that in the Word or flowing out of the Word, a person needs to look to the Lord Jesus Christ, and shun evils as sins, and out of the affection for truth for the sake of truth and good of life. Apart from this it is hard to see that, if at all possible, and the various opinions of the men, councils can be taken as almost Divine or Biblical on the merely natural grounds of tradition or authority and the very truths can be denied. For instance, the faith in the Lord, expressed by Peter in the Gospels, appeared to the learned, scribes, acamedicians of those times as not Biblical, for they did not know where it comes from, but to others, who looked to the Lord, and to the heavenly kingdom, and not only to this one, it appeared valid.

Consocius, I prefer to base my belief from the "thing written" the Scriptures, as it is "God breathed" inspired by God.
Any opinions from men that contradicts God's written Word, I may know why they are held but God's words is of much priority.

2Ti 3:16  R1AllG3956 ScriptureG1124 is N1inspiredG2315 by GodG2315 and profitableG5624 for teachingG1319, for reproofG1649a, for correctionG1882, for N2trainingG3809 in righteousnessG1343;

G1124
γραφή graphē
Thayer Definition:
1) a writing, thing written
2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents