If you were shown irrefutable evidence that heaven or hell did not exist, would that interest you?

[coconut theology]

Yes, perhaps the only accurate bit of scripture i know. ...

We will see what you know of scripture as time goes on, and responses are given and evidences cited, for presently the OP of this thread shows a great lack of knowledge in regards what scripture does teach from Genesis to Revelation about 'Hell' and 'Heaven', when a simple perusal of the texts, would have saved any embarrassment.

As a personal testimony, I find that many atheists these days aren't really such, but are truly anti-theists. It is not that they do not believe in God, it is that they hate God vehemently and with passion, even 'venom' (and it always shows), and try to denigrate at every chance they get that which they claim to not believe in (such as God, scripture, prayer, faith, etc), and when they do no such thing for other things they claim to not believe in. Such persons, that fit this category are R. Dawkins, the late C. Hitchens (died of cancer, more likely the chemo for it), S. Harris, and so many others, and they all stem from the same secular humanism birthed by the Jesuit order (religious humanism) in the French revolution and reign of terror. Some are Jesuits playing the hegelian dialectic.

 

[metis]

S. Harris, and so many others, and they all stem from the same secular humanism birthed by the Jesuit order (religious humanism) in the French revolution and reign of terror. Some are Jesuits playing the hegelian dialectic.

That's complete unadulterated nonsense, and you should be ashamed of posting such trash.

"Secular" is the opposite of "religious" by definition alone. Nor are the Jesuits into the Hegelian dialectic as that's counter what Jesus and the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[ChristineM]

Christine, if you will in future, please give me the benefit of the doubt, as to the fields of study I am familiar with, proficient in, or expert at.

DNA is a language upon a molecular level. It is the most sophisticated complex (not simple) 'code' known to mankind in existence. Libraries do not write themselves. 'Working Code', does not arrive by mishap, or accident. Your response did not come about without intelligence and direction, to form letters, those bits of alpha-bet, into recognizable order, to make words and complex structure with verbs, nouns, pronouns, syntax, subject and predicate, etc - all to convey meaning to oneself and perhaps another (myself, or other).

I was specific in what a wrote, i.e. perhaps the only accurate bit of scripture i know
I know of no other scripture that actually agrees with the fundamental laws of physics.

DNA is actually very simple, comprising of only a handful of components, but there are a lot of them. You are confusing complexity with quantity.

A library is a straw man, irrelevant to DNA

And how about telomerase? The claim was, Adam lived to 930 years. Assuming we are all descended from Adam our DNA, including its telomerase would not begin to break down that DNA in a humans 20s

 

[ChristineM]

We will see what you know of scripture as time goes on, and responses are given and evidences cited, for presently the OP of this thread shows a great lack of knowledge in regards what scripture does teach from Genesis to Revelation about 'Hell' and 'Heaven', when a simple perusal of the texts, would have saved any embarrassment.

As a personal testimony, I find that many atheists these days aren't really such, but are truly anti-theists. It is not that they do not believe in God, it is that they hate God vehemently and with passion, even 'venom' (and it always shows), and try to denigrate at every chance they get that which they claim to not believe in (such as God, scripture, prayer, faith, etc), and when they do no such thing for other things they claim to not believe in. Such persons, that fit this category are R. Dawkins, the late C. Hitchens (died of cancer, more likely the chemo for it), S. Harris, and so many others, and they all stem from the same secular humanism birthed by the Jesuit order (religious humanism) in the French revolution and reign of terror. Some are Jesuits playing the hegelian dialectic.

What embarrassment? I was truthful, i see no need to be embarrassed about being honest.

But jumping to odd ball conclusions about my knowledge really must be embarrassing to those not immune to such a human emotion.

Your opinion of the mind of another human being is truly godlike.

What is to hate? Harry potter? The Hog Father? (Look it up). Once again you are confused. Now you are confusing hatred of the abusers and those who willingly misrepresent atheism because they know nothing about it with hatred of god. What do you not understand about the definition of atheism?

Dawkins is not atheist, he is at most, agnostic, he cannot be sure if there ix a god. But feel free to misrepresent him, it happens a lot with theists.

Jesuit what??? Wow.

 

[sojourner]

Inspired by a thread by @ideogenous_mover,
If an entity offered you as an atheist an after life after you lived, would that interest you

A question to all those with belief in the afterlife. If you were shown irrefutable evidence that heaven or hell did not exist would that,
evidence cause you to modify your faith? Would your faith in heaven/hell remain firm? Or would you dismiss the evidence?

Of course I cannot provide such irrefutable evidence, only circumstantial which is of no value to a believer.

https://cognitive-edge.com/blog/hell-explained-by-a-chemistry-student/

 

[sojourner]

My faith doesn’t deal much with either “heaven” or “hell.” So the “non-existence” or either or both is of little consequence to my faith.

 

[ChristineM]

Hell explained by a Chemistry Student - Cognitive Edge

I have seen it before in several slightly different versions. Whichever version i read i still have a little chuckle. Thanks

 

[Link]

Inspired by a thread by @ideogenous_mover,
If an entity offered you as an atheist an after life after you lived, would that interest you

A question to all those with belief in the afterlife. If you were shown irrefutable evidence that heaven or hell did not exist would that,
evidence cause you to modify your faith? Would your faith in heaven/hell remain firm? Or would you dismiss the evidence?

Of course I cannot provide such irrefutable evidence, only circumstantial which is of no value to a believer.

I hope it would but claims are claims. No one thinks they won't accept the truth when shown to them, but, when reminded, people often are stubborn.

 

[rational experiences]

I was specific in what a wrote, i.e. perhaps the only accurate bit of scripture i know
I know of no other scripture that actually agrees with the fundamental laws of physics.

DNA is actually very simple, comprising of only a handful of components, but there are a lot of them. You are confusing complexity with quantity.

A library is a straw man, irrelevant to DNA

And how about telomerase? The claim was, Adam lived to 930 years. Assuming we are all descended from Adam our DNA, including its telomerase would not begin to break down that DNA in a humans 20s

Maths is invented by the inventor of the use of MATHS and also science terms/references, as a human, owning a human life, living as a human, claiming conscious I know it all, as a living human expression.

Uses the human inferred detailing of thinking using all concepts invented by that human bio life to explain what he names and identifies as a naming process which he applies for his own sake...human and male...the inventor of science.

Then says yes I identify from my owned life body that many other natural multi bodies living in Nature identify with similar information.....so says, we all live together in our Natural and Nature life in a supported aware balance, in the full knowledge that we came from nowhere else....except where we are.

But then a human says, I am also aware that where we live and how we exist once existed in a higher place and owned a higher presence. And you would not express that determined reference if it were not true to realising.

For although some mentality proves that it cannot be scientific by conditions of how it is expressed, as science itself was just invented by a process of a natural human thinking, then they cannot ignore the relevant self advice that a natural self states is not scientific when it never was scientific.

Which brings to the evidence of self of why we know when we bio organically die...we still own a spiritual being presence as a spirit in the eternal spirit...for all of creation was removed from that origin.

As each form in Nature to be formed owns it end...to say presence, the observation study concludes that we had to have in fact all came from the exact same place and moment in that place as a higher spirit form....so science actually had identified that we did come from the eternal spirit...that one place and one moment into a separated and self owned separated presence.

 

[Deidre]

Most non-theists who debate theists, trying to debunk their beliefs, have an agenda. I'd have to sit with someone who has no agenda, to believe that they honestly have ''evidence'' to sway my beliefs. That's just how I see it, though. I guess there's a million ways to answer.

 

[Muffled]

So shall i say hypothetical irrefutable evidence, it is after all only s thought exercise.

I believe God would know if something didn't exist since He created everything but that won't work for God Himself. I believe there is enough evidence for the existence of God so that it would be impossible to find irrefutable evidence that He doesn't exist.

 

[Muffled]

On the other paw? You cannot have Impossible Things: A married bachelor. A square circle.

A god who is both All Good but creates Evil.

Thus, you *can* prove certain gods do not exist, simply because they are impossible constructs.

Like... dry water. Or? Honest Politicians...

I believe the create evil thing is not what you think. God is good but man does evil. So what God sees as good man sometimes sees as evil. It is the same event but a different perspective.

 

[Muffled]

Most non-theists who debate theists, trying to debunk their beliefs, have an agenda. I'd have to sit with someone who has no agenda, to believe that they honestly have ''evidence'' to sway my beliefs. That's just how I see it, though. I guess there's a million ways to answer.

Agenda or not it still can't be proven that something doesn't exist unless God says so. I would accept that as proof.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe God would know if something didn't exist since He created everything but that won't work for God Himself. I believe there is enough evidence for the existence of God so that it would be impossible to find irrefutable evidence that He doesn't exist.

You are most welcome to your belief but can you please provide a snippet of the evidence you consider believable?

 

[Deidre]

Agenda or not it still can't be proven that something doesn't exist unless God says so. I would accept that as proof.

I understand what you’re saying. I’m a Bible believer after refuting it in the past so I’m in agreement but not everyone reads or believes that the Bible is literally “the Word of God.”

 

[Link]

You are most welcome to your belief but can you please provide a snippet of the evidence you consider believable?

There is the seeing argument, I've made. That we rely on God's sight for a defined exact reality to who we are and so if we aren't an illusion, then God exists. We aren't illusion, therefore God exists. But that is complicated and in a way, you have to already know only absolute vision can define us and judge us, which is true. This is a robust proof but requires about 3-4 premises to elaborate on. Each of them have to an argument.

The coolest proof for God though is the ontological argument. Suppose God exists for a second, is it the case, that he exists both possible in imagination + reality, and we have to get connected and have some sort of mystic experience beyond normal to see Him? The ontological argument shows, in fact, it's impossible to not see the real thing existing.

And this is cool because God would be in this case a proof for himself. That is when you look at and try to conceive it conceptually, you aren't using imagination, you are making use of God's reality and looking at the real thing, and he proves by his own nature of being necessary and absolute existence, that not only does he exist, but cannot but exist. That is his greatness is comprehensively huge, no possible world or thing can be independent of it. Include our world in possible things and yourself as a dependent.

This means even people who don't see God's beauty or Majesty and are not awestruck by it, when they remember God mathematically with respect to his greatness, and I'm not saying you have to know his judgment and light, just mathematically he is the greatest being, then you see him exist.

This as cold hard proof for himself as it get's but at the same time, it's mystical. It means all this time, you thinking God was in imagination was false, you were looking at the real thing.

 

[Link]

So another way to phrase the ontological argument is to say everything else can be conceived as possibly not existing and be in imagination (like a unicorn) while God cannot be in imagination due to his necessary absolute nature, only be seen in reality. We do conceive of God conceptually, therefore, are looking at the real thing, therefore he exists.

 

[ChristineM]

There is the seeing argument, I've made. That we rely on God's sight for a defined exact reality to who we are and so if we aren't an illusion, then God exists. We aren't illusion, therefore God exists. But that is complicated and in a way, you have to already know only absolute vision can define us and judge us, which is true. This is a robust proof but requires about 3-4 premises to elaborate on. Each of them have to an argument.

The coolest proof for God though is the ontological argument. Suppose God exists for a second, is it the case, that he exists both possible in imagination + reality, and we have to get connected and have some sort of mystic experience beyond normal to see Him? The ontological argument shows, in fact, it's impossible to not see the real thing existing.

And this is cool because God would be in this case a proof for himself. That is when you look at and try to conceive it conceptually, you aren't using imagination, you are making use of God's reality and looking at the real thing, and he proves by his own nature of being necessary and absolute existence, that not only does he exist, but cannot but exist. That is his greatness is comprehensively huge, no possible world or thing can be independent of it. Include our world in possible things and yourself as a dependent.

This means even people who don't see God's beauty or Majesty and are not awestruck by it, when they remember God mathematically with respect to his greatness, and I'm not saying you have to know his judgment and light, just mathematically he is the greatest being, then you see him exist.

This as cold hard proof for himself as it get's but at the same time, it's mystical. It means all this time, you thinking God was in imagination was false, you were looking at the real thing.

the seeing argument,

That is opinion that relies on redefining the word reality to mean "what i believe". It obviously convinces you but it cannot be considered falsifiable evidence

the ontological argument.

The ontological argument relies on flawed assumption.

God would be in this case a proof for himself.

And i see this as circular reasoning and misunderstanding of how the mind works

 

[Link]

That is opinion that relies on redefining the word reality to mean "what i believe".

Who you are is not just a belief, it's a reality, but relies on existing in God's vision and not just your imagination to be real.

 

[Link]

The ontological argument relies on flawed assumption.

What is that, the existence is not an attribute and is a predicate? No, that's a false at worst, and at best if true, a red-herring.