John wrote:
>The fact that time and it's passing is relative
>to the speed of light means it is not "just like"
>God's "eternity."
Are you talking about Einstein's relativity theory?
If so, then if time were relative to the speed of light, it would be
constant because the speed of light is constant in the assumptions of this
theory. I think perhaps you meant to say that time is relative to motion,
and that time appears to hold still (be non-existent?) for objects that
travel at the speed of light.
Even if all this were true, it does not mean that the word "eternal" could
not apply. Rather than progress down this rabbit trail, let me address
something more to the point. What you take to be fact is only an assumption
of relativity theory. The failure of relativity theory to evolve into a
TOE, and evidence in the field of quantum mechanics (something you have
acknowledged to have knowledge about in past posts), should give us pause
concerning this assumption. We certainly should not consider it a fact.
The study of physics needs another revolutionary break through and theories
that would better explain our universe.
If all this is saying that you could be right and I could be wrong, I agree. My resoning in the previous post is as clear as I can make it. I do not believe that God exists in time, in a diemensional sense. Faith is the bridge, for me, to that God.
John
