Welcome to the site, Sean, and thanks for a succinct, clear answer. As you are new here, you might notice that some questions are less asking, more trying to prove the OPs beliefs about the topic. So, when answers disagree, the OP might try to argue in the comments boxes. This might happen here, following your answer (which flags up a flawed, secular definition of 'life' given by the OP). But comments are only for suggesting improvements to Qs and/or As. I simply offer a suggestion here that your answer is perfectly clear and does not need elaboration in comments boxes.

@Anne. Thanks Anne. Rajesh is certainly out to prove a point; so is any apologist though. I'll have to reserve judgement on whether to reply when I see what he has to say though, that's only fair. Rajesh, may I point out in advance that "This is how all shall know that you are my disciples, that you smash each other intellectually and humiliate them" is not actually biblical. You and I must both exercise grace, humility and temperance.

"This is how all shall know that you are my disciples, that you smash each other intellectually and humiliate them" That's not what I was trying to do though. "Your argument that writhing in the lake of fire constitutes life is your flawed premise" I didn't mention writhing in the lake of fire. Your answer is just the same as all the others, just in different terms, and doesn't answer my question or directly tackle it. You don't even quote the verse that is the literal subject of my question(Matthew 10:39). I'm sorry, but, like everyone else, you don't comprehend my question/argument.

You're new here Sean, so welcome! :) I'll be succinct. Just answer this question for me, please. No arguments, nothing. Just answer this simple yes or no question. When the wicked are "writhing in the lake of fire", are they doing so in functional bodies(are they embodied), yes or no? I'll repeat: When the wicked are "writhing in the lake of fire", are they doing so in functional bodies(are they embodied), yes or no? If yes, then they have life, by definition. If they are embodied in functional, physical bodies, then they have life, again, by definition. Again, no arguments. Thanks! :)

@Rajesh: You can't tell someone not to make an argument in the middle of a debate. Their embodiment is utterly irrelevant at that point, as is the nature of the lake of fire. If they are in the second death, then they are NOT in life, by biblical definition. FWIW, I lean towards 'yes', but it's irrelevant.

"Their embodiment is utterly irrelevant at that point" Well, I'd say no, considering the physical embodiment of the wicked in the lake of fire is one of the fundamental tenets of the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, that is one of the greatest points of contention(if not the greatest) in the debate between conditionalism and traditionalism. So, no, it is not "utterly irrelevant".

"I lean towards 'yes'" Ok then. The wicked have life, namely, physical life. Simple as that. If they are animate and have functional bodies, they have life. This is not disputable. Making this -- "Your argument that writhing in the lake of fire constitutes life is your flawed premise" -- an invalid objection, not that it ever was one, on account of the fact that it's a strawman of my argument(btw, "arguments" are not the same as "premises". Arguments consist of at least one premise, but they are not premises themselves).

It's utterly irrelevant to your argument because it undercuts your assumption that the 'physical life' = life. Whatever quality defines life, it's some quality that is not present in the lake of fire, which is the second death. "If they are animate and have functional bodies, they have life" No. I'm going to trust the Bible, not your entirely secular definition. If Rev 20 says the lake of fire is death, then it's not life by definition, regardless of embodiment or any other secular philosophical definition of life.

I'm saying you can have 'physical life' or some other state able to experience torment without having life as defined by the Bible. It's not a subset. You've got the definition of life wrong and so there are category errors right through your premises and deductions. At this point the debate becomes over whose definition to use; you've defined it differently than the outline provided in the Bible for constructing the definition, and I trust the Bible.

"No. I'm going to trust the Bible, not your entirely secular definition" You know that one word can have more than one definition, right? The Bible uses the secular definition of life countless times, way more than it does whatever "spiritual" definition you have in mind. "At this point the debate becomes over whose definition to use" Agreed, the debate was always that. But you're not saying that my definition of life cannot be used in Matt. 10:39. You're saying that my definition of life is not a valid one that the Bible ever uses, period. That's unequivocally wrong, I'm sorry. :/

"You're saying that my definition of life is not a valid one that the Bible ever uses, period" Yes, I am, although the overlap between the definitions is high in this world, so you can be forgiven for having gotten it wrong and extrapolating the overlap to the next life. My argument would still hold if the Bible uses 'life' in a few different ways too, though; the one its using considering the lake of fire is the only critical one

My turn to ask a question, I answered yours: Where in the Bible does it define life as being animate in a functional body? Verse and chapter? I say you've assumed the definition. If either a) there's one definition of life but it's not yours, or b) there are multiple definitions of life, you're wrong and eternal torment is compatible with the Bible. So show me where the Bible affirms your one true definition.

"Where in the Bible does it define life as being animate in a functional body" The Bible is not a dictionary, which is why we rely on actual dictionaries to help us understand the words in the Bible. Hebrew dictionaries, Greek dictionaries, and English dictionaries. All of these dictionaries define "life" as the condition/state that distinguishes between animate beings and inert objects. "a) there's one definition of life but it's not yours, or b) there are multiple definitions of life, you're wrong and eternal torment is compatible with the Bible." You still don't get my argument.

@Rajesh - Are dictionaries divinely inspired? How do we know that those dictionaries tell us what the Holy Spirit (who supposedly inspired the Biblical authors) wanted to say?

Oh,I get it alright. Your entire argument rests upon the premise that physical life sufficiently constitutes life when Jesus says life in Matt 10:39. If it doesn't, then experiencing the lake of fire doesn't necessarily constitute life. The only authority I'm challenging here is the dictionary, which, like you, has not stopped to ask what outlines the Bible has provided around the definition of life. Dictionary definitions, if dogmatically adhered to, sometimes challenge the Bible. That's a problem for the dictionary or the one who dogmatically tries to eisegetically force them on the Bible.

@SeanOConnor Define the word "life" for me using only the Bible. Like, explicitly define life for me. Apparently, dictionaries, whether Hebrew, Greek, or English, don't actually matter that much, and according to you, the precise definitions found in the many dictionaries we have are insufficient and flawed. So precisely define "life" for me, please. Use only the Bible. I have already said that the Bible is NOT a dictionary, and hence we must rely on actual dictionaries. But you seem to disagree. So, precisely define "life" for me using nothing but the Bible. Go on, please.

@SeanOConnor If you can't precisely define the word "life" using the Bible, well, I guess that leaves us only two options. Make up a definition for the word life on our own, or rely on the dictionaries that have been compiled and updated over the span of many years by numerous scholars and experts, many of which have dedicated their lives to providing precise and accurate definitions for the many tens of thousands of words found in languages such as Hebrew, Greek, and English. For example, the LSJ, which is an incredibly comprehensive Greek dictionary, regarded as one of the best in the world.

1) Nice to see that you're conceding that you're arguing from the dogmatic authority of secular dictionary writers to define 'life' with precision that extends even to the next world. 2) I'm absolutely arguing that we should - must, even - define categories and words relating to the most spiritually important concepts in exegetical fashion and NOT rely on dictionary writers. By all means rely on a dictionary for man made concepts. Defining a computer is a task a dictionary is adequate for. Defining life is one where they aren't. To be cont'd.

@SeanOConnor Ok, since you clearly know what's best, precisely and accurately define "life" using only the Bible. We have lexicons, concordances, and dictionaries, all compiled and updated by experts over the span of many, many years. But, they are all flawed and insufficient and untrustworthy when it comes to Biblical matters. So, please show me where they've gone wrong by creating an accurate and precise definition of "life" on your own using nothing but the Bible. Can't wait! :)

3) There are obvious problems with the dictionaries' authority in the case of the word 'life'. 3a) The definitions offered by you in bold differ widely. Consider the Oxford languages definition versus the Dictionary.com definition. One references metabolism, the other does not. Is metabolism a prerequisite for life? 3b) All of those definitions contradict the Bible if applied dogmatically, or at best offer no guidance on things that we know to be alive. God doesn't grow, change or metabolise, does He? Is the quality that distinguishes angels from inorganic matter actually the same quality that

distinguishes plants and animals? Last time I checked, dictionaries weren't authorities on such things, but here you are telling me that they have the ability to dogmatically define life itself. 3c) In any biology textbook, you'll find a discussion of how vexed definitions of life are.

Is a virus life? How about a prion? If expert biologists can't define the subset of life that is biological life even with far more rigorous definitions than a dictionary, then what authority do dictionary writers have to define life in the next world

4) According to the apparently authoritative Oxford Languages definition you offered, life has to be able to grow, reproduce and (not or) change. Can you grow, reproduce or change in the Lake of fire?

5) I don't need to precisely define life. I just need to show that your entirely secular definition, with authority that is both secular , contradictory to the Bible (3b), self contradictory (3a), vague (3c) and contradictory to the conclusion you've built off them (4) is questionable.

My argument doesn't rest upon an authoritative precise definition of life, but your critical inference does. Our situations are asymmetric, and I'm going to take full advantage of it, as any good apologist should.

@SeanOConnor Viruses and prions are not considered life in the scientific community. Viruses are, however, life-like.

Says who? It's been a matter of debate for decades.

Says who authoritatively, rather.

It's just general scientific consensus. But of course the meaning of the word "life" depends on how you define it.

One requirement for life is irritability, which refers to response to the environment. Viruses and prions lack that.

It's not consensus, it's a highly debated topic.

Not among virologists.

But it really just depends on the definition you use.

There's no objective measure for whether or not something is alive without first defining what we mean by alive.

No kidding it depends on the definition you use.

I was just nitpicking. A definition can only be useful or not, but examining the "correctness" of a definition is a category error.

Yeah,given that Rajesh and I have been thrashing ouf the definition of life and/or whether dictionary writers are able to define it authoritatively, I'm going to have to ask you to curtail this tangent.

Well you got 15 more minutes before the debate continues. Someone raised an offensive flag and it was validated.

microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/….

That is a microbiology society debating whether viruses are alive.

I thought you wanted this tangent to end? :P

But sure, it is debated (or rather, what's debated is whether or not a definition of life that would include viruses is useful). There's a strong consensus, but it's not completely universal. Anyway, I won't take up any more of your time.

Oh,

I think allowing a weak consensus to be described as 'the scientifc

C

D'OH!

Thanks Forest, have a nice day, tally ho.

"The definitions offered by you in bold differ widely" No they don't. They all say essentially the same thing. Every dictionary on earth can't be identical to every other dictionary. "One references metabolism, the other does not" These are not exhaustive definitions, and include examples/generalizations. Each dictionary says fundamentally the same thing. Observe:

Merriam-Webster - "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body". Oxford Languages - "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter". Dictionary.com - "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms".

Cambridge dictionary - "the quality that makes people, animals, and plants different from objects, substances, and things that are dead". As you can see, they are fundamentally the same.

"In any biology textbook, you'll find a discussion of how vexed definitions of life are. Is a virus life? How about a prion? If expert biologists can't define the subset of life that is biological life even with far more rigorous definitions than a dictionary, then what authority do dictionary writers have to define life in the next world." I'm not asking you to define life to the most precise and accurate degree imaginable.

No one can define any word to the most precise and accurate degree imaginable. No experts or scholars either, and I'm not saying the definitions we have are the most precise and accurate definitions possible. I'm saying they're the BEST definitions possible. If you can't come up with a better definition than these dictionaries, then what business do you have here telling me that my use of "life" is unjustified.

You have no right to speak against it if you don't have a better alternative. If you're going to assert that my definitions of unreliable and incorrect, the onus is on you to substantiate that claim. And you can't do that without offering a better, more reliable and correct definition. If you can't do that, once again, what business do you have here?

"Can you grow, reproduce or change in the Lake of fire" Irrelevant. I've already said that those were examples/generalizations.

"I don't need to precisely define life" Ok, sure, but you need to have A definition, and it has to be better than mine since my definitions are what you are opposing. You can't use a word if you don't know what it means.

Essentially, if you can't provide any better alternatives to my definition of "life", what are you doing here? You won't use my definition, and you don't have one yourself, and you can't use a word if you don't know what it means, so provide an alternate definition and one that is more Biblically consistent than mine. That is all you have to do. If you can't do that, then, once again, what are you doing here?

You can't base an argument using a word that you don't even know the meaning of. That's like a blind person leading a blind person. So, come up with a better definition, or this is a waste of time. If I have to choose between NO definition or A definition, I'm going to go with A definition, that is, until I am proffered an alternate definition.

Remember, you're the one objecting to my definition of life. I'm not objecting to your definition of life, because, well, you haven't provided one! I can't object to something nonexistent. So, the burden of proof is on you to show why my definition contradicts the Bible. And, again, you have to provide a Biblically accurate alternative.

That's your job. Otherwise, your contention against my definition of life is invalid.

Aaaaaand he's gone.

I guess he gave up.

Ooops, typo. I meant to say, "I'm saying they're the BEST definitions we have", not "I'm saying they're the BEST definitions possible".

I guess he couldn't provide an alternative, nor substantiate his claim, and so he took me up on what I said("If you can't do that, then, once again, what are you doing here?"). Oh well. :'(

No need to get personal. My paid work outranks you in my priorities.

I'm saying that your chosen definitions have a specific flaw which is that they don't account for a known/suspected problem case, namely what, if anything, constitutes life in the Lake of Fire, which is described as the second death.

Those characterisations aren't just examples, btw, they're central to common high profile debates about boundary cases of what constitutes life; see e.g. viruses.

If you asked the same secular biologists whether a non metabolising, non changing, non reproducing thing was life, they'd tell you no.

Which would preclude God himself being alive.

If that isn't a demonstration that these definitions have not been worked on with spiritual entities in mind and are unsuitable for assessing such entities, then I don't know what is.

'Best secular definition possible but with known flaws when applied to spiritual entities' is not a useful standard for discussing the Lake of Fire.

You absolutely can base an argument on a single characteristic rather than a definition, it's routine in mathematics.

I have no idea what 3 ^ 27 is, but I can tell you right away that any definition of an even number that includes it us

*is

wrong.

Attacking a single characteristic of a definition is mor

*Normal

and logically coherent.

"Those characterisations aren't just examples, btw, they're central to common high profile debates about boundary cases of what constitutes life" Ok, I agree. But "life" means the same thing at the fundamental level in all definitions.

Essentially, putting all the definitions together, "life" is the condition or quality that distinguishes a functional, animate being from an inanimate, inert object[e.g. a dead body].

That agrees with each and every definition I listed. They are all essentially the same.

Gang

"Which would preclude God himself being alive." When the Bible calls God a living being, it's using a different definition of "living".

You seem to forget this, but a word can have more than one definition.

Hang on, I'm not allowed to differ with any minute aspect of the deginitions, but you're allowed to cobble them together to synthesise a preffered one??

The Bible can use the word "life" in a certain way in one context, and in another way in another context.

YES!

YES

"but you're allowed to cobble them together to synthesise a preffered one??" I'm not cobbling them together. I made a definition that stays true to each and every one of the definitions I listed.

Where are the references to metabolism, growth and change?

I already said: "No one can define any word to the most precise and accurate degree imaginable. No experts or scholars either, and I'm not saying the definitions we have are the most precise and accurate definitions possible. I'm saying they're the BEST definitions we HAVE."

"Where are the references to metabolism, growth and change?" I'm not trying to be as precise as possible.

Yes, and like the best theories of gravity that we have, they hsbe known problems

have*

"'Best secular definition possible but with known flaws when applied to spiritual entities' is not a useful standard for discussing the Lake of Fire." You're right, it wouldn't be, IF the Lake of Fire deals with spiritual entities, but you explicitly believe that it doesn't, and that is deals with PHYSICAL entities. So, this is not an objection.

"Yes, and like the best theories of gravity that we have" Not least of which is the fact that it can't be reconcile with quantum theory!

There's no such thing as a purely physical life.

All life is spiritual and physical.

Or rather, spiritual, and possibly physical

What I mean is that the best model of gravity we currently have(i.e. Einstein's theory of general relativity) has not yet been cohered with quantum mechanics.

It's a false distinction

"There's no such thing as a purely physical life." I didn't say physical life. I said physical entities.

A physical entity is an entity that is made of matter.

Atoms.

Quarks.

Leptons.

Are we made of atoms and quarks in the next world?

An entity that is bound by the physical laws of the universe, etc.

"Are we made of atoms and quarks in the next world?" Ummmmmmmmm.

I'd hope so??

Have you repeated Rutherford's experiments in the eschaton?

No.

Quarks are elementary particles. All matter is made up of quarks.

Are you saying that we will not be made of matter in the next world?

Then stop applying the physics of this world to the next

We're going on a tangent.

Let's get some things clear.

Who knows what the laws of physics are in the next world?

You, as an ECT proponent, believe that the wicked are resurrected in physical bodies, i.e. bodies that are made of matter. Bodies that can be felt and that can feel(in your view, namely, the fires of hell).

No, let's look at all the planet sized assumptions youre making

Are you ok??

Saying that we'll be made of matter in the next age is a "planet-sized assumption"??

No, you're arguing with ECT the way you would like it to be

I totally reject that characterisation

Yes, planet sized.

Oh do you? Well then you aren't an ECT proponent.

I'm not making up that characterisation.

The laws of physics may render particles meaningless

"The laws of physics may render particles meaningless" What?

How can a particle be meaningless?

do particles have "meaning"?

The concept of a particle, nitpicker

And how can the laws of physics, which are the physical laws of the universe, render something like a particle(which are physical) meaningless??

"The concept of a particle, nitpicker" A word like obsolete would be better than.

Maybe it's all waves? Or it's infinitely divisible. Or not divisible at all

And what types of particles are you talking about?

Protons? Neutrons? Elementary particles? Bosons? Leptons?

All gone, potentially.

Useless categories.

No longer observed.

...

So, basically, the entire universe will vanish?

No

The entire universe is made up of particles.

if particles are "all gone", then the universe is "all gone".

It just may not be made of discrete particles

What's a discrete particle?

Not at all. There may be continuous functions perfectly able to describe everything.

Are you talking about virtual particles then?

If actual physical particles will be all gone, only virtual particles can remain.

Not so. Imagine all 'matter' is infintely divisible

Btw, virtual particles are quantum fluctuations that display some traits of ordinary particles.

It was a popular thesis until the atomic age.

"Not so. Imagine all 'matter' is infintely divisible" But it's not. Elementary particles are where it stops.

That's not even proven in this world,let alone the next.

You would be eschaton physicist.

Ok, but what about Planck length?

The smallest possible unit of length.

Who knows what structures underlie it?

Do you?

Is there a quantum tick?

Are particles discrete in time?

Who knows?

Not you.

Ok...

Applying the physical laws of a world that is being destroyed to the next is planet sizec foolishness.

It's monumentally presumptuous.

oooooook.

We'll have resurrection bodies. We have no clue if they will be made of bosons, etc.

The unrighteous will suffer eternal torment.

Ok, but they wont actually feel anything though.

Whether embodied or disembodied but able to experience is irrelevant. Either way, it's not 'life' to experience the second death.

Torment implies experience

"Whether embodied or disembodied but able to experience is irrelevant" Oh!! Ok... Well why didn't you say that! I'm not arguing against a traditionalist then.

Or consciousness

You claimed to be against eternal separationists too

No running away now

We should discuss Satan.

Is he 'alive' after he goes into the lake of fire?

eternal separationists also believe that the wicked WILL be embodied in the LOF.

"Is he 'alive' after he goes into the lake of fire?" Well, I don't believe that he will literally go into the lake of fire. I believe that he will die the second death. So, he won't be "alive" in whatever sense of "life" is the opposite of the whatever sense of "death" the "Second Death" is.

Should I say, "death" is the deprivation/cessation of life, and so when he dies the second death, satan will be deprived of life. Now, what sort of "life" we're talking about is subject to debate.

"Well, I don't believe that he will literally go into the lake of fire"

Oh, so now you don't know how life is defined when it comes to the LoF.

Or is it that you do know, with great precision, the exact definition of 'life' in the LoF for people but not for Saran

*Satan

And for some reason, the false prophet

Who was presumably a person

Look everyone, Rajesh says we don't have a very clear definition of 'life' after all.

200 paragraphs a

No, I didn't say that. I said that we don't know what TYPE of life is in view in revelation 20:10. Not that I can't define "life" after all.

"Now, what sort of "life" we're talking about is subject to debate."

Define life and tell me if he is alive or not.

What type of life do you want me to define though??

"Life" has several definitions, is what I'm trying to say.

And why you've put definitional vagueness quotes on "life".

Hmm?

There's only several, and you know them all well.

Enumerate them

I don't need more than 12

Define them and tell me which ones Satan is alive by.

I'm not going to pursue this particular tangent as I really want to see the several known definitions of life that you have told me of, but all that's required for ECT is the E, the C and the T. Eternal, conscious torment. Embodiment isn't necessary.

You've added that in yourself.

Now, back to defining/enumerating the definitions of life and telling me if Satan is alive according to each

"Embodiment isn't necessary" In fact, I'd agree! However, the majority of ECT adherents would not. I'm not arguing against your sort of ECT. I'm arguing against traditional ECT, which asserts that the wicked are embodied and have physical life. As you've said, you don't really believe that to be the case, so I'm not arguing against you. Anyway, have a good day! :)