Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
861

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Then I suppose “post humanist” thinking is the arrogant notion that humans are significant in any way, and we are suddenly great because we have iPhones and movies and shit?

[/quote]
There is no such thing as post humanist thinking.

Dante didn’t have an iPhone so I don’t see the connection. [/quote]

I feel like… You’re missing my point. Leaving the entire exchange would help that. [/quote]
I feel like…You’re out of your depth. Staying here to provide comedic value would help that.

862

[quote]pat wrote:
Well if you want to get really, really specific, all the substance of the physical are technically beliefs. It does not mean they are not true or they don’t exist, it means we are limited in our ability to prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt that they exist. That they are more than just perception. [/quote]
Doesn’t that apply to God as well?

863

[quote]Karado wrote:
It’s refreshing to finally talk Scripture after over 30 pages.

They may be “false” Gods, but there is nowhere where it says they don’t exist
in like manner that “false Prophets” exist, but they are false nevertheless.

Deuteronomy 10:17
“For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords” (plural usage)

1st Samuel 28:13
And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou And the woman said unto Saul,
I saw gods ascending out of the Earth. (hollow earth theorists have fun with this one)

Deuteronomy 28:14
Thou shalt not … go after other gods to serve them (it’s impossible to “serve” something that doesn’t exist.)

[/quote]

My temptation is to mock, but really I have to just shake my head. It totally misses the point of a large majority of the OT which illustrates there is no such thing as a ‘god’ other than the single Creator of existence.

864

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Well if you want to get really, really specific, all the substance of the physical are technically beliefs. It does not mean they are not true or they don’t exist, it means we are limited in our ability to prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt that they exist. That they are more than just perception. [/quote]
Doesn’t that apply to God as well? [/quote]

No, it does not. The existence of God can be derived a priori where as the physical is derived a posteriori.
The difference is you can derive the existence of God deductively which is an absolute. In other words, God exists, or he doesn’t. While the stuff of physical existence is derived to exist to a degree, to a statistically significant likelihood.

865

[quote]pat wrote:
No, it does not. The existence of God can be derived a priori where as the physical is derived a posteriori.
The difference is you can derive the existence of God deductively which is an absolute. In other words, God exists, or he doesn’t. While the stuff of physical existence is derived to exist to a degree, to a statistically significant likelihood.
[/quote]
You can also arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist using the same method.

866

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Then I suppose “post humanist” thinking is the arrogant notion that humans are significant in any way, and we are suddenly great because we have iPhones and movies and shit?

[/quote]
There is no such thing as post humanist thinking.

Dante didn’t have an iPhone so I don’t see the connection. [/quote]

I feel like… You’re missing my point. Leaving the entire exchange would help that. [/quote]
I feel like…You’re out of your depth. Staying here to provide comedic value would help that. [/quote]

Translation:

You don’t get what I was trying to say, which could be a miscommunication on my part, so rather than try and figure it out, you are going to attack me rather than what I said.

Priceless.

867

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Well if you want to get really, really specific, all the substance of the physical are technically beliefs. It does not mean they are not true or they don’t exist, it means we are limited in our ability to prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt that they exist. That they are more than just perception. [/quote]
Doesn’t that apply to God as well? [/quote]

No, it does not. The existence of God can be derived a priori where as the physical is derived a posteriori.
The difference is you can derive the existence of God deductively which is an absolute. In other words, God exists, or he doesn’t. While the stuff of physical existence is derived to exist to a degree, to a statistically significant likelihood.
[/quote]

Whatever assumption one uses when one thinks one is proving God’s existence through a priori deduction is in fact itself a mere belief, or an a posteriori induction.

“Matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

“Every event has a cause.” [According to QM, this one isn’t even true.]

“All extant things that can be conceived of as not existing must rely for their existence on an uncontingent entity of necessary existence.” [Also not true according to QM.]

Edit: In other words, I tend to believe some proofs of God to be convincing, but to say that they are indisputable is incorrect.

868

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
No, it does not. The existence of God can be derived a priori where as the physical is derived a posteriori.
The difference is you can derive the existence of God deductively which is an absolute. In other words, God exists, or he doesn’t. While the stuff of physical existence is derived to exist to a degree, to a statistically significant likelihood.
[/quote]
You can also arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist using the same method. [/quote]

No, you cannot. You do not understand cosmology if you think that. I can post some links if you want to understand it better, but you cannot say something deductive can be reduced by empirical methodology, it just simply doesn’t work that way.
If God’s existence were merely an application to our senses, something we could taste, feel, see, touch and hear and there were no deductive way of reasoning out his existence, his existence would actually be less certain.
It’s the type of thing that would make you empirical only types certain there is a God and those of us who rely on reason less certain. Just because you can see it, doesn’t mean it exists, just because you cannot see it doesn’t mean it does not.

An example based on something we both agree exists. Math. You cannot see math. You cannot know it’s existence based on sensory information. We know it exists because of what it manifests and the symbols we use to represent it. It’s an object of pure reason, we understand it based on representations and symbols. Those representations and symbols are not the math itself, just a representation of it. We know the math exists, we know it because the functions work despite how we represent them, we cannot violate it’s principles and it’s premises and conclusions are also always true.

869

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Well if you want to get really, really specific, all the substance of the physical are technically beliefs. It does not mean they are not true or they don’t exist, it means we are limited in our ability to prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt that they exist. That they are more than just perception. [/quote]
Doesn’t that apply to God as well? [/quote]

No, it does not. The existence of God can be derived a priori where as the physical is derived a posteriori.
The difference is you can derive the existence of God deductively which is an absolute. In other words, God exists, or he doesn’t. While the stuff of physical existence is derived to exist to a degree, to a statistically significant likelihood.
[/quote]

Whatever assumption one uses when one thinks one is proving God’s existence through a priori deduction is in fact itself a mere belief, or an a posteriori induction.

“Matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

“Every event has a cause.” [According to QM, this one isn’t even true.]

“All extant things that can be conceived of as not existing must rely for their existence on an uncontingent entity of necessary existence.” [Also not true according to QM.]

Edit: In other words, I tend to believe some proofs of God to be convincing, but to say that they are indisputable is incorrect.[/quote]

Show me the quantum mechanical law that supposedly has no cause and I will show you the cause. QM itself is a something which is the result of something else. And that which is not fully understood, is not causeless. As in the example of Null Theory where particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum. A vacuum is something, it occupies space-time. And these particles behaviour is not fully understood, but there are many theories as to what going on and all of them have and are a potential cause.
You’re thinking of causation in a temporal succession of events. That’s a kind of causation, but not causation itself. Casual events happening simultaneously or even temporally backwards is still caused. They may be weird, but still have a reason for doing what they are doing.

870

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Agreed math is a discovery and not some random belief or man made invention.
[/quote]

Everything we know is ‘discovered’ we create nothing. Nobody has ever had an original thought even. We didn’t invent the car, we discovered it could be done. We didn’t invent the wheel, we discovered that something round, rolls. We didn’t invent fire, we discovered fire. We didn’t invent science, we discovered it.
That all exists beyond our knowledge of it as does much, much more we have yet to discover.[/quote]
Pre-humanist thinking. It’s also one of the tricks that the early Church used to create believers (followers). If it’s written down it must be true since we can’t create anything. [/quote]

No, it’s plain fact. Give me an original thought or create something original with no precedent. I won’t hold my breath. We can reorganize things, but those ‘things’ already exist. [/quote]
And that’s the trick. Anything I write you will simply dismiss as not really being original. You’ll claim that it already existed and whoever was the first to come up with it was not a creator but a discoverer. But I’ll play. Poetry. Man invented poetry. Now tell us all how man discovered it rather than created it. Was he digging for gold one day and pulled out a metaphor? [/quote]

It’s silly to see it as a trick. It simply a fact. Poetry? The reorganization of words, meanings and sounds to elicit a particular response or emotion? No that’s not original. It’s reorganizing things we are already aware of to make us aware of something we may previously not been aware of. We discovered that is we can organizes sounds with attached meanings in a particular way, we can convey meanings that the words and sounds themselves we previously couldn’t articulate. But, yes the sounds, meanings and understanding exist, we just discover them. The arts are just another way to understand the world around us.
It’s not a trick, it just a simple fact.[/quote]
So the poet’s choices are not his creation but rather he just happens to discover them? When Shakespeare has Juliet ask, “what’s in a name,” he was simply rearranging some words?

The arts are not a way to understand the world around us (that’s science) but the world within us. When a poet writes about a tree it isn’t about the tree.
[/quote]
No. Understanding does not come only from academics, artists reflect their feelings and thoughts through various mediums. Relating to them and understanding them is a way of understanding ‘our world’. Does not ‘our world’ consist of thoughts, emotions and other less tangible, measurable things?
Science it limited in what it can do. It’s a pretty narrow band of information.

[quote]

I suppose you’ll also claim that a Coltrane solo is not original since he was using musical notes and scales that already existed, an instrument that he did not invent and an art form that he did not originate. [/quote]

I don’t have to claim it, just prove it wrong. It’s called epistemology. The more one know about what we know, what we can know and how we get knowledge, the wiser one will be.
Where does art come from, magic?

871

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Then I suppose “post humanist” thinking is the arrogant notion that humans are significant in any way, and we are suddenly great because we have iPhones and movies and shit?

[/quote]
There is no such thing as post humanist thinking.

Dante didn’t have an iPhone so I don’t see the connection. [/quote]

I feel like… You’re missing my point. Leaving the entire exchange would help that. [/quote]
I feel like…You’re out of your depth. Staying here to provide comedic value would help that. [/quote]

Don’t ruin this shit with ad hominems. I understood perfectly what CB was getting at and it looks to me like you don’t have an answer for him.

872

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Leaving the entire exchange would help that. [/quote]

To clear something up, what I was intending to say here was:

Leaving the entire exchange of words that came before this part would help. As in, Z cut out the context of my statement.

I did NOT intend to say Z should leave the discussion.

My bad.

873

Man you guys ruin my work day. Gone a week and I get so far behind. I wish I had more time to bone up on some of this stuff.

874

[quote]pat wrote:

Show me the quantum mechanical law that supposedly has no cause and I will show you the cause. [/quote]

Look up “hidden variable theory” and see that it has failed in every test administered. QM is not written in stone and I don’t purport to know that an uncaused event is possible; however, neither can anyone purport to know the converse.

The simple fact is this: Give me any proof of God’s existence, and I’ll show it to be unresolved by attaching the clause “this is an assumption” to each of its premises.

Edit: “That which is not fully understood is not causeless.” Exactly right, but the theory is not that no cause has been found–it’s that no cause exists. I urge you again to look into HVT and the debate surrounding it.

875

What have I missed? This is a rhetorical question. I will have to spend a lot of time to catch up.

876

pat typed: ‘‘My temptation is to mock, but really I have to just shake my head…’’

Likewise with your belief in the ‘‘Miracle Of The Sun’’, an event you concur with the Vatican
as a Miracle from Christ, and I will keep harping on that unbiblically prophesized event you
think was Holy because you are intelligent to know from Scripture Satan is a miracle worker and has been
from the beginning…And this is an event I would have wholeheartedly believed in, if it was
prophesized…but it was not and neither was the female figure who showed up that predicted it,
you really need to ponder that and think hard about that…It’s OK to disagree with the Vatican
once in a while and not walk in lockstep with them every single time.

I find it unlikely that My Savior would send a female entity down to Earth to scare the fuck out of
Little ‘‘Jacinta’’, at age 7 showing her terrifying visions of hell at one of the ‘‘apparitions’’…at age 7!
That was not Jesus Christ…doing that to a child…no way…no friggin’ way…he did not ordain that vision to an innocent child.

877

OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH

Replace God with ‘fairies’ and it’s the same thing. You can believe in them if you want to but there’s zero evidence that’s it true.

879

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sxio wrote:
OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH

Replace God with ‘fairies’ and it’s the same thing. You can believe in them if you want to but there’s zero evidence that’s it true. [/quote]

yawn[/quote]

lol right.

36 pages and this is the apex of contribution, silliness with no real philosophical depth what so ever…

880

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Show me the quantum mechanical law that supposedly has no cause and I will show you the cause. [/quote]

Look up “hidden variable theory” and see that it has failed in every test administered. QM is not written in stone and I don’t purport to know that an uncaused event is possible; however, neither can anyone purport to know the converse.

The simple fact is this: Give me any proof of God’s existence, and I’ll show it to be unresolved by attaching the clause “this is an assumption” to each of its premises.

Edit: “That which is not fully understood is not causeless.” Exactly right, but the theory is not that no cause has been found–it’s that no cause exists. I urge you again to look into HVT and the debate surrounding it.[/quote]

I have looked at this before. The problem establishing as an event as uncaused is impossible. The reason why is that by the very fact that an event has occurred in a particular condition already begets that it is caused. It depends on the condition in which it occured so that condition. So if a mysterious event occurs under a certain condition, that condition is one of it’s dependencies.
The problem you describe may be a scientific issue, in that under certain conditions something may occur for seemingly unknown reasons, but in the philosophical world, the condition itself is a causal factors.
To disprove causation you have to have a random event, uncaused event that could be anything dependent on ne reason or condition whatsoever.

You cannot say that the premises of cosmology are assumptions, you have to prove that they can even theoretically be false. The beauty is if you can prove the premises to be false at any level then the whole argument falls apart. We are not dealing with empirical data here. We are dealing with absolutes. It’s completely binary. The premises are true or false, not probably or mostly true. They are either absolutely true or they are absolutely false. So if you can find even one example of the premises being false, then the argument is false. If you can prove that the premises might not be true, then the argument is false.
If you can do that, you will have done what no philosopher or scholar had been able to do for the last 2000 years, poke a hole in cosmology.
This is as concrete as it gets.
You really have to understand what the premises are and why they are true and why they cannot be false. Because the falsity of the premises are not logically deducible.