What the bible says Hell is like

[snowtracks]

---

I think you're over complicating it.

God decided that there should be Hell, which is probably the most evil concept most people could imagine. If you'd like to describe a more harmful and evil act anyone could ever do than to create a place specifically for unending suffering, I'd be interested. Especially since he is more aware than anyone just how much suffering he is creating. He has no excuses, especially if he's meant to be the standard of good. He can just snuff people out after death if he doesn't want them in his club.

---

Hell has nothing to do with redemption or anything like that, since once you're in you can't get out. It is god's revenge and serves no other purpose than showing how evil he is and how much he will hurt you, to scare you into obedience.

Back in reality however, you die and then that's very likely it. Every second spent worrying about hell is a waste. You may as well worry that you'll become a goblin after death and you'll have to listen to really high pitched music 23 hours a day.

Believers have two natures: the old (sin nature), and the new nature; upon death the old nature dies; whereas, the unbeliever’s one old nature continues after death. So volition, causal powers, and intentionality will continue after death emanating from whatever eternal nature one’s processes after physical death.
Undoubtedly people have the freedom to leave but that sin nature desires to stay. That then eternal state nature is unbridled from the influence of virtue, truth, and love which emanate from God so it stays (freedom to leave but can't enter the New Creation). The unbeliever is always trending either to salvation or blasphemy (unpardonable sin which is saying 'no' to the Holy Spirit's redemption promptings). The unbeliever old nature doesn't die upon death which is the penalty of blasphemy; whereas, the believer's old nature dies since they said 'yes' to salvation. Unbelief, or belief is not a God existence issue, but rather one of accepting God's salvation plan. Everyone believes in God since his invisible qualities - eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so people are without excuse. Creation is always linked by God to redemption.

Agree, shouldn't worry about it but God put eternity into every person (body, soul, spirit), higher animal (body, soul), lower animals (body) so everyone knows that spiritual beings don't die with the body, and they know who made them since they were made in his image.

[Pat Mustard]

Agree, shouldn't worry about it but God put eternity into every person (body, soul, spirit), higher animal (body, soul), lower animals (body) so everyone knows that spiritual beings don't die with the body, and they know who made them since they were made in his image.

Show one smidgeon of evidence for the existence of souls. Please, go on, I dare you.

[robvalue]

You can't just say stuff and then it's true.

It's kind of an important point that a lot of people need to learn.

[snowtracks]

Agree, shouldn't worry about it but God put eternity into every person (body, soul, spirit), higher animal (body, soul), lower animals (body) so everyone knows that spiritual beings don't die with the body, and they know who made them since they were made in his image.

Show one smidgeon of evidence for the existence of souls. Please, go on, I dare you.

By inference to the data; universe has meaning which connotes a non-physical component. The best explanation of the Anthropic Principle is:
(A) There exists one possible Universe ‘designed’ with the goal of generating and sustaining ‘observers.’ *
An exclusively physical universe wouldn’t have meaning. But if anyone has the world viewpoint that the universe has no meaning, they should go with that thought.
*https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/brandon-carter/

PS: Mind-your-manners.

[Cyberman]

Check-your-privilege.

[dyresand]

Show one smidgeon of evidence for the existence of souls. Please, go on, I dare you.

By inference to the data; universe has meaning which connotes a non-physical component. The best explanation of the Anthropic Principle is:
(A) There exists one possible Universe ‘designed’ with the goal of generating and sustaining ‘observers.’ *
An exclusively physical universe wouldn’t have meaning. But if anyone has the world viewpoint that the universe has no meaning, they should go with that thought.
*https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/brandon-carter/

PS: Mind-your-manners.

No it certainly does not have  meaning

[KevinM1]

Isn't it funny how the thing they try to conclude is present in their premises?

[dyresand]

Isn't it funny how the thing they try to conclude is present in their premises?

Yeah it really is.

[Pat Mustard]

Show one smidgeon of evidence for the existence of souls. Please, go on, I dare you.

By inference to the data; universe has meaning which connotes a non-physical component. The best explanation of the Anthropic Principle is:
(A) There exists one possible Universe ‘designed’ with the goal of generating and sustaining ‘observers.’ *
An exclusively physical universe wouldn’t have meaning. But if anyone has the world viewpoint that the universe has no meaning, they should go with that thought.
*https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/brandon-carter/

1) Your assertion that a physical universe would have no meaning, while accurate (meaning is something our storytelling brains try to fit ot events to make them comprehensible), is totally without relevance to the argument.

2) The anthropic principle is an assertion without evidence. It was made by people who wanted to ascribe unmerited importance to our existence. All available evidence suggests our universe is far more possible than previously thought, and even if it were the proverbial billion to one, that still doesn't show evidence for purpose, a creator or even the existence of souls. In fact you bringing up this tangenital argument shows the utter lack of evidence you have for your position.

PS: Mind-your-manners.

Showing up the gross lack of basis for your beliefs isn't a lack of manners. I'd suggest that if you don't like robust debate, that you stop interacting with educated people who'll likely disagree with you.

[snowtracks]

By inference to the data; universe has meaning which connotes a non-physical component. The best explanation of the Anthropic Principle is:
(A) There exists one possible Universe ‘designed’ with the goal of generating and sustaining ‘observers.’ *
An exclusively physical universe wouldn’t have meaning. But if anyone has the world viewpoint that the universe has no meaning, they should go with that thought.
*https://godandsoul.wordpress.com/tag/brandon-carter/

1) Your assertion that a physical universe would have no meaning, while accurate (meaning is something our storytelling brains try to fit ot events to make them comprehensible), is totally without relevance to the argument.

2) The anthropic principle is an assertion without evidence. It was made by people who wanted to ascribe unmerited importance to our existence. All available evidence suggests our universe is far more possible than previously thought, and even if it were the proverbial billion to one, that still doesn't show evidence for purpose, a creator or even the existence of souls. In fact you bringing up this tangenital argument shows the utter lack of evidence you have for your position.

PS: Mind-your-manners.

Showing up the gross lack of basis for your beliefs isn't a lack of manners. I'd suggest that if you don't like robust debate, that you stop interacting with educated people who'll likely disagree with you.

If through your 'robust' debating and education have concluded that the universe has no meaning, that's perfectly fine. Information however does originates from intelligence. Matter doesn't have causal capabilities to impart information to itself.