Existence

Well, my interpretation is that eternity is something essential to the Eternal Thing/Substance/God/Being (everything, all in all), not something that may or may not exist depending on something else. It's not contingent: in the moment Being is (and there is no moment, just the fullness of time) eternity is too. Actually, too is the wrong word. There is no difference between Being and eternity, and Being tiself exist in eternity in all directions - time is non linear, the third kind of knowledge (sub specie aeternitatis) means that everything exist in eternity all the time; think of it as the smallest possible point and the biggest possible area. It's easier if you use Parmenides's description of Being as a guide.

But that's me and I'm in no way a Spinza scholar, hope someone else may give another opinion.

File: 1457024389761.jpg (152KB, 640x720px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 640x720px

>>8602169
So, to summarize your point: Eternity may exist even if nothing exists.

How can something exist if there is nothing?

Am I mentally handicapped? Did I not read your post more carefully? Are you the one who's not making any sense?

>>8602222
Wait, how did infer "Eternity may exist even if nothing exists" from my post?

>[Eternity] It's not contingent: in the moment Being is (and there is no moment, just the fullness of time) eternity is too.

Just saying, Being exists. Being is the one Substance, that which, by definition, is and cannot not be. I can't remember his version of the Ontological Argument word for word, but it's in the first half of the first part. God is just another word for Being, in this case, as is Substance. These three words all refer to the same concept, that of something that essentially (as in, it's inherent to its own nature, this thing cannot be thought about withouut this attribute) exists and

>everything exist in eternity all the time

How did you get from this to "eternity may exist even if nothing exists"? I don't understand.

>>8602242
Disregard my previous post, since I mistakenly misunderstood your explanation.

I understand what you mean now, thanks for your time. I'll be sure to read a little about Parmenides, since you mentioned him earlier being a sort of guide.

>>8602277
No worries, Spinoza is not easy to get into and talking about him requires an immoderate amount of Jargon. Parmenides only wrote one book (On Nature), of which we have but a few fragments left; you can read it in ten minutes online, I suggest you look into some secondary literature if you're interested. Good read mate.