Of course you don't. Doing so would disintegrate what remains of your claims and flawed syllogisms.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science and hell
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
You cannot have it both ways.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
Poppycock
We Never Know
No Slack
"A basic assumption of science is that natural causes explain natural events."
Being there was no "nature" until after the big bang, what makes it a natural event?
No, science does not deny God's influence, that would presume God. Science does not presume God.
"Dirty?" How so? Science -- 'knowledge' -- is morally neutral.
No knowledge in heaven? -- that sounds just about right.
As I said, science is morally neutral, like fire. One can use it for good or ill. Scientists are individuals like anyone else.
You assume a creator not in evidence.
No it doesn't.
Science doesn't say there can't be a God, it says that there's no evidence of one, as yet. That's how science works, it withholds belief in things like phlogiston, dark matter or God, till evidence be found.
Experience. Nothing has ever been found to have a magical cause. Why assume one just cause you don't yet understand a phenomenon?
Last edited:
Atheism is the absence of a belief in the supernatural. That would include Satan.
But this gets us nowhere until we know what real entity the word "God" is intended to denote ─ a definition such that if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether it was God or not.
As far as I know, there's no such definition.
Not always... There are atheists with supernatural beliefs. I think it more specifically has to do with beliefs in deities. I'm not sure if Satan would fill that role. I guess that depends just how highly you hold him in importance.
So scientists are going to hell because they invented the A-bomb? Most scientists had nothing to do with it. Many supported nuclear disarmament, but the politicians and warmongers tend to get their way more than the scientists.
Why can't they have science in Heaven? A scientist in Heaven might monitor the rate of decomposition of his/her own body, and compare to that of other scientists. They might make observations and determine which insects or worms are consuming their remains. Couldn't they do that? They'd be doing science in Heaven.
I'm sorry, but this got me cracking up... I feel like it could be one of Jack Handy's "Deep Thoughts."
The best argument for science and hell ever...
Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic?
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term:
"Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Support your answer with a proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So, we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities.
1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2) Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it ? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Therese Banyan during my Freshman year that "It will be a cold night in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then (2) cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic.
The student got the only A.
There are versions where hell is endothermic but you get the idea
Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic?
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term:
"Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Support your answer with a proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So, we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities.
1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2) Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it ? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Therese Banyan during my Freshman year that "It will be a cold night in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then (2) cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic.
The student got the only A.
There are versions where hell is endothermic but you get the idea
Altfish
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because there is no evidence of such.
It also assumes no undetectable graviton pixies are regulating gravity.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Science denies everything for which no evidence exists.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This makes no sense.
The big bang first is an unknown event. As in, we don't know what triggered it. The origins of the universe (of the big bang) are unknown at this point.
So it could be a natural event or it could be an unnatural event. Although there is no evidence at all for it being an unnatural event.
And also considering that just about every phenomenon that was once attributed to "supernatural" causes, turned out to have natural causes, I'll put my money on the big bang being a natural event.
Since there is zero evidence of anything supernatural, right out the gates the "supernatural" is always the least likely.
exchemist
Veteran Member
The Big Bang theory actually says nothing definitive about the presumed very start of the universe. It accounts for the evidence we have - from nature - of an expansion from an initial hot and dense state. If one tries to extrapolate general relativity back from this state, one ends up with infinite density at a finite time in the past, a "singularity".
That's as much as science can say, because that's as much as observation of nature justifies.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
There is no heaven for science to be there. Sceintistes did not use A-Bomb. Theists used it.
Your princlples are clear from your post. Why would anyone be interested in them?
Do you mean Hell of punishment and torture... or the Everlasting Fire? They are very different.
When someone realizes that something is of no use anymore, he just throws it into fire (or the like) to return it to its raw state. He surely does this not to torture it
This applies on a robot when it is time to put it out of service for good.
Sorry, because logically, this also applies to those who are created to be human robots. A human robot looks as a selfish human (stimulated by the natural pleasant sensations which are pre-programmed in his living cells) to play his various important roles in life for which he is created/made. His guidance is his personal natural instincts.
This (returning back to the state of void, the state before one's birth) is the worst case which could happen to a human being after death.
So there is no reason to be worried about one’s afterlife
Added:
Please note that this truth is taboo. It shouldn't be known by the world's multitudes; otherwise it would be real hard to those who are created to play the masters (in any formal ruling system, religious or political, around the world) to control their religious followers as we do with our little kids.
Last edited: