Immortality vs Eternal Life

[Malchik]

Immortal means 'exempt from death'. If by 'eternal life' we mean the same, then there can be no difference. If by 'eternal life' we mean there is the opportunity to live for ever but that other circumstances might prevent that happening, the difference is clear.

 

And the distinction matters. Discoveries in science may prevent death and aging in the normal course of events but will not eliminate the possibility of death. This creation of 'eternal life' belongs to the second category. On the other hand those mythologies that believe there is 'eternal life' after death - Hercules being made a god for instance - belongs to the former kind when eternal life and immortality become synonymous.

 

What seems to be debated above however is not this distinction but whether immortality equates to immutability. I cannot see that there is any connection. A being, whether immortal or having eternal life is capable of changing both mentally and physically. Ignore, for the purpose of my argument, that evil and good are relative terms defined by the adjudicator (I know they really are) and say they are unvarying givens. An immortal being or one with eternal life may easily perform acts of both types over eternity. Acts that it would itself have never done at one point in time it may enjoy at another.

 

So the concepts of it being good or evil cannot be applied. The best anyone can say is that 'at this point in time from it's perceived actions most people would probably consider the entity to be good (or bad as the case may be)'. And really, that amounts to nada!

 

If anyone wants to bring the discussion around to such emotive topics as good and evil, the word 'immortal' is not enough. You would have to add 'and immutable' and that changes the ballpark completely.

[Kahenraz]

This is why I wanted to start very basic and work things up slowly.

 

Immortality and immutability are not the same. Please don't confuse the two terms. Immutability is what Peregrine is describing.

 

In regards to immortality, there can be no death. Correct? Death is a corruption in the body whereas it ceases to function. Thus, the proper working order of the normal bodily functions becomes irreversibly flawed.

 

There is no contradiction. Good and evil are moral judgements, not some absolute law of the universe.

 

Can you be so sure? You seem certain. Do you know this to be fact?

 

Lets throw in "Good" and "Evil", or in other words "Creation" and "Destruction".

 

Both are opposites, different poles of one another. Much like 1 vs -1. This is fact, not a mere unproved, unreasoned thought process. If the creation and destruction of suns, planets and life throughout the universe is indeed fact, when why can't it be an absolute law? The universe is composed of matter. Correct?

 

There are laws, irrevocable laws that even an immortal must follow. These are indeed the laws on the universe. As it has already been proven: "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." Is any of us to say that an immortal or a God could do otherwise? It would void the law. To cause destruction, matter must be used. It is not feasable for matter to appear out of nothing and to dissapear from existance. To do so would collapse time itself. If it does not exist then it could not have altered time to be as it is now (this is for later discussion). The whole universe would collapse into.. chaos and corruption. Into discord and disorder.

 

If the concept of order and disorder is concrete, then the law of good and evil cannot be questioned. Good embodies order. Evil embodies disorder.

 

It is not possible for order and disorder to be the same. If an immortal is order, then an immortal is without disorder and flaw. That is to say that an immortal is without evil. And Evil is not Good.

 

Therefore an immortal must be perfect, or a perfected being.

 

Please continue.

[Peregrine]

You're extending this way too far with flawed reasoning.

 

1) Immortality gives no power beyond immunity to harm. If you want to start talking about infinite/limited power you have to add in omnipotence as well. An immortal could be human just like us in every way except that they can not be harmed.

 

2) Good and evil are not the same as order and chaos. They may be according to the culture and society of our world, but that's not a law of the universe. Evil does not require destruction and good does not make it impossible.

 

Or lets look at it from another way. Just like our society associates creation with order and chaos with destruction, we associate good with white and evil with black. Does that mean black can not exist in the universe, because it would violate a law to have it?

 

But since you'll insist on them being related unless I show you a contradiction, here's one:

 

Lets say I create a weapon that kills you by turning you into a perfect crystal at absolute zero (the definition of perfect order). You are dead and by any normal definition, killing you is an evil act. But at the same time, I have created order (supposedly the same as good). Of course I could be good and not kill you, but then there's more disorder (and according to you, evil) in the universe.

 

3) Creation and destruction do not only apply to the matter itself. You can destroy things without destroying their matter. You can create things without creating new matter. We do it every day. An immortal could do the same, create and destroy, be good and evil, all without violating any laws of the universe.

 

4) Matter can be destroyed, at least on the atomic scale. A particle and an anti-particle will be completely destroyed and converted to energy if they come into contact.

[Kahenraz]

Ugh. Please slow down. You seem to have already come to your conclusion and are firing every example you can come up with to shut me down. This is a debate, not a game where someone will be declared the winner. Keep an open mind.

 

1) Immortality gives no power beyond immunity to harm. If you want to start talking about infinite/limited power you have to add in omnipotence as well. An immortal could be human just like us in every way except that they can not be harmed.

 

Again, immutability. I am talking immortality, "without flaw" or "perfect[ed]". And we're not on the topic of omnipotence right now. My last statement was on perfection.

 

2) Good and evil are not the same as order and chaos. They may be according to the culture and society of our world, but that's not a law of the universe. Evil does not require destruction and good does not make it impossible.

 

Perhapse I was a bit unclear. I meant to compare Good and order and Evil to disorder. Creation, chaos, etc. are examples that are seen through perspective. Evil requires a form of disorder, not destruction. Destruction can, however, be a form taken by disorder.

 

Or lets look at it from another way. Just like our society associates creation with order and chaos with destruction, we associate good with white and evil with black. Does that mean black can not exist in the universe, because it would violate a law to have it?

 

These are words that can be governed by multiple perspectives. "We associate" and "they associate" may yield opposite meanings. Order and disorder are the purest forms of good and evil, unless someone has an even better example.

 

Lets say I create a weapon that kills you by turning you into a perfect crystal at absolute zero (the definition of perfect order). You are dead and by any normal definition, killing you is an evil act. But at the same time, I have created order (supposedly the same as good). Of course I could be good and not kill you, but then there's more disorder (and according to you, evil) in the universe.

 

Whah? Absolute zero? That's a relative order. And the subject of killing is much to large a step for right now, as well as "you are dead". You say that you have created order. I agree, you have, but on a relative scale. Much like I balance an unbalanced equation. It's relative.

 

3) Creation and destruction do not only apply to the matter itself. You can destroy things without destroying their matter. You can create things without creating new matter. We do it every day. An immortal could do the same, create and destroy, be good and evil, all without violating any laws of the universe.

 

My example and that quote was referring to that fact that (I will repeat) creation and destruction does not only apply to the matter itself. But you are correct in identifying what I wanted you to understand. There are realms of creation that are infinately possible that we lack the knowledge to understand. But this would be different for an immortal. One without flaw in a perfected state would have complete understanding as to how to work these laws to their advantage.

 

4) Matter can be destroyed, at least on the atomic scale. A particle and an anti-particle will be completely destroyed and converted to energy if they come into contact.

 

You're diving into more relativity. When I say matter I'm referring to that which cannot be destroyed. A particle and an anti-particle are in existance before they cause a reaction that changes their form. But the result does not dissapear from time and space. As I stated before, It is not feasable for matter to appear out of nothing and to dissapear from existance. To do so would collapse time itself. If it does not exist then it could not have altered time to be as it is now (this is for later discussion). The whole universe would collapse into.. chaos and corruption. Into discord and disorder. This follows the same rule that something cannot be created out of pure nothing.

 

Restating my last conclusion:

 

It is not possible for order and disorder to be the same. If an immortal is order, then an immortal is without disorder and flaw. That is to say that an immortal is without evil. And Evil is not Good.

 

Therefore an immortal must be perfect, or a perfected being.

 

Please continue.

[Peregrine]

Again, immutability. I am talking immortality, "without flaw" or "perfect[ed]". And we're not on the topic of omnipotence right now. My last statement was on perfection.

 

But you're talking about creating matter out of nothing. That would require omnipotence, and is irrelevant to the subject of immortality. Again, us mere humans do not have to be good. An immortal with limited powers would not have to either, even if I conceded every single one of your points.

 

Perhapse I was a bit unclear. I meant to compare Good and order and Evil to disorder. Creation, chaos, etc. are examples that are seen through perspective. Evil requires a form of disorder, not destruction. Destruction can, however, be a form taken by disorder.

 

Wrong. My point remains just as true no matter what you try to compare good and evil to. Good and evil are morality judgements created by our society. There is no greater law of the universe that requires or defines them. And again, evil does not require disorder... my murder by order example is evil without disorder.

 

These are words that can be governed by multiple perspectives. "We associate" and "they associate" may yield opposite meanings. Order and disorder are the purest forms of good and evil, unless someone has an even better example.

 

Wrong. Order is a a perfect crystal at absolute zero. That has nothing to do with good or evil. And an entirely chaotic gas is full of disorder, but is not evil. The two things are not connected by an absolute law of the universe. Just like black/evil and white/good, order/good and disorder/evil are subjective morality judgements that our society has decided to make.

 

Whah? Absolute zero? That's a relative order. And the subject of killing is much to large a step for right now, as well as "you are dead". You say that you have created order. I agree, you have, but on a relative scale. Much like I balance an unbalanced equation. It's relative.

 

What are you talking about? Order has been defined as "zero disorder (and therefore pure order) is a perfect crystal at absolute zero". This is an unarguable definition. You can not get any more ordered than that. And order/disorder is not a balanced equation. In fact, disorder in a closed system tends to increase without balance. And order can, if an outside effect is added to create it.

 

Now if I kill someone by turning them into a perfect crystal at absolute zero, how have I not increased the order? If that's not a big enough change, lets say I do it to the whole universe. Billions of people murdered, a clearly evil act. But I have created pure order, and pure good. See the contradiction yet?

 

My example and that quote was referring to that fact that (I will repeat) creation and destruction does not only apply to the matter itself. But you are correct in identifying what I wanted you to understand. There are realms of creation that are infinately possible that we lack the knowledge to understand. But this would be different for an immortal. One without flaw in a perfected state would have complete understanding as to how to work these laws to their advantage.

 

Again, you're going way too far with your definition of immortality. An immortal could easily be only human in every way but immunity to physical damage, with limited human knowledge.

 

You're diving into more relativity. When I say matter I'm referring to that which cannot be destroyed. A particle and an anti-particle are in existance before they cause a reaction that changes their form. But the result does not dissapear from time and space.

 

The result of matter/antimatter destruction can not in any way be called matter. Therefore matter has been destroyed. And the process should be reversable (and according to some theories, is reversable). An antiparticle and a particle can be created out of nothing, but only in exact pairs. Of course they'd instantly destroy themselves, but they still were created out of nothing. If you want the theories that explain this, I'll post them for you.

 

As I stated before, It is not feasable for matter to appear out of nothing and to dissapear from existance. To do so would collapse time itself. If it does not exist then it could not have altered time to be as it is now (this is for later discussion). The whole universe would collapse into.. chaos and corruption. Into discord and disorder. This follows the same rule that something cannot be created out of pure nothing.

 

Uh, what are you talking about? Why would the universe and time collapse? There is absolutely no evidence to support this concept. If you're going to argue facts, you need more than your own guesses at the truth.

 

=================================

 

Since you obviously don't understand immortality.... There are a few attributes which gods (or godlike beings) are usually considered to have (or at least have some of).

 

1) Immortality: You can't die, you can't be harmed, etc. This refers only to the physical form, nothing more.

 

2) Omnipotence: You have infinite power, and can do anything. Note: this does not mean "infinite power according to some rules." By definition, you can simply rewrite any rule that gets in your way.

 

3) Omniscience: You know everything. You might not be able to do anything with this knowledge unless your power allows you to.

 

4) Perfection: Not all gods have this, in fact some are clearly defined as not having it. But anyway, you're absolutely perfect. Of course if you're also omnipotent, you can simply define perfection as yourself, no matter how "imperfect" you might seem....

 

 

 

 

The subject of this debate is immortality. The things you are talking about require the addition of perfection and omnipotence, otherwise they are completely irrelevant.

[Kahenraz]

Peregrine! Read my posts!! I am working this up in stages and you're completely skipping some of the larger jumps!

 

Good and evil are morality judgements created by our society.

 

I am not talking about what society thinks is good or evil, I am talking about GOOD and EVIL in its purest form. Not society's interpretation and parallels.

 

Wrong. Order is a a perfect crystal at absolute zero.

 

That is a relative interpretation. I'm not talking about absolute zero or stability..

 

What are you talking about? Order has been defined[...]

 

I don't care which definition you like better. It is irrelivant.

 

Please do not analyze my sentences to death. You are moving very off-topic and confusing yourself. You're misreading much of what I say. Most of what you bring up is irrelivant. I'm not here to wage a war.

 

Uh, what are you talking about? Why would the universe and time collapse? There is absolutely no evidence to support this concept. If you're going to argue facts, you need more than your own guesses at the truth.

 

Lets say that there is ice in the middle of a road, a car loses control on it, and the driver dies. If all of a sudden that ice is removed from existence, then it cannot have existed in the first place because it cannot appear or dissapear into nothing because time in history says that it existed. The two contradict each other. It exists yet it dosn't exist.. it can't exist because it is not, but it must because it has been.

 

Please stop making this a contest and return to the original topic.

[Peregrine]

Peregrine! Read my posts!! I am working this up in stages and you're completely skipping some of the larger jumps!

 

I am reading it. You're making those jumps based on seriously flawed arguments.

 

I am not talking about what society thinks is good or evil, I am talking about GOOD and EVIL in its purest form. Not society's interpretation and parallels.

 

By definition good and evil are subjective judgements made by society. There is no "purest form" beyond that.

 

That is a relative interpretation. I'm not talking about absolute zero or stability..

 

You're talking about order and disorder. Those concepts have been defined. Like it or not, the definition of pure order is a perfect crystal at absolute zero. If you want to argue facts and laws of the universe, you can't just make up your own definitions.

 

I don't care which definition you like better. It is irrelivant.

 

Exactly right. My opinion of the definition is just as irrelevant as yours. The definition is there and unarguable. If you want to talk about order and disorder, you have to use the true definition or you might as well be discussing "dsjfldsajklsa".

 

Lets say that there is ice in the middle of a road, a car loses control on it, and the driver dies. If all of a sudden that ice is removed from existence, then it cannot have existed in the first place because it cannot appear or dissapear into nothing because time in history says that it existed. The two contradict each other. It exists yet it dosn't exist.. it can't exist because it is not, but it must because it has been.

 

Uh, there's no contradiction there. If the ice is removed before the accident, the outcome involving the driver's death does not happen, and that series of events never happens at all (the driver's death is merely a guess at probable outcomes). If it is removed after the driver's death, its nonexistence begins the moment the removal occurs. If you're omnipotent, you write the laws of the universe. If you feel like removing ice without consequence, you can do it.

 

But in any case, this example is completely irrelevant. You're talking about omnipotence not immortality. An immortal with only human powers (as I stated earlier, this is possible) would be limited to human methods of destroying the ice. Melting it, scraping it up and moving it, etc.

 

Please do not analyze my sentences to death. You are moving very off-topic and confusing yourself. You're misreading much of what I say. Most of what you bring up is irrelivant. I'm not here to wage a war.

 

I'm not the one going off topic. You keep bringing up ideas that have nothing to do with immortality. All your statements about good/evil and destroying/creating matter are completely irrelevant since they require something more than immortality to even be possible.

 

If you want to discuss things other than immortality, declare a change of the debate topic.

[Kahenraz]

Nevermind. <_<

Either don't reply to my debates or keep an open mind while you read. You're missing most of what I say.

[Peregrine]

I do keep an open mind. But there's a difference between "open mindedness" and "believing everything someone says, no matter how unreasonable." You're making a ton of unjustified assumptions, and basing all your conclusions on flawed arguments.

 

You can't talk about absolute laws of the universe and then bring in subjective concepts like good and evil. You can't pick whatever definition of a law that best proves your argument. If you want to talk about order as a required law of the universe, you have to use the correct definition of it.

 

So we've got two cases here:

 

1) Immortality includes omnipotence. In that case, none of what you said is relevant. An omnipotent being can simply rewrite any law of the universe they feel like changing. Reality and the universe are defined by that being's will. If they want to create matter out of nothing, all they have to do is decide that it is possible. Same with anything else they want to do.

 

2) Immortality does not include omnipotence. You're limited to following the laws of the universe. Us mere humans can do good or evil, create or destroy, etc. If no other power is granted, why would immunity to physical harm change this ability?

[thanateros]

Both of you are extremely off topic. IIRC this debate is about the comparison ad contrast of immortality versus eternal life; now you're taking it to another level that involves philosophies that are much more complicated than the two topics originally discussed. Good and Evil have nothing to do with immortality or eternal life yet they've managed to work themselves into the debate.

 

As for the case of omnipotence being a result (or requirement) for immortality you have to also, then, explore the requirements for God-hood, since by its nature, God is omnipotent (according to most religious doctrines). So how can we assume that anything immortal is also omnipotent? Furthermore, if we do assume that an immortal is omnipotent and if humans by their nature were immortal, what use would God be if everyone is omnipotent (of what exactly I'd rather not get in to since it would complicate matters exponentially)?

 

I think this conversation needs to take a step back and we need to reexamine what exactly this debate is about because clearly things are getting off topic.