On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

Wait, what? Peter, James and John were certainly eyewitnesses and authors of books of the NT. Luke wrote Luke and Acts by speaking to eyewitnesses. So...there's that. No one thinks that the apostle with the name actually took up the pen. It was understood that the other three gospels were the accounts from three different groups surrounding the apostles and undertaken by three editors ALL WITHIN the lives of eyewitnesses --including any rebuttal witnesses. Further, there is no reason to suspect the content of the gospels because the content was already believed decades earlier in the churches as well as referred to in ALL the epistles.  So, over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ. Even further--there are no coherent alternate theory that explains the books AS WELL AS the churches across the Roman Empire that believed that Jesus rose from the dead PRIOR TO 50AD. 

So, it would seem that your "the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses" is not only an assertion, it is plain false.

Unfortunately, the actual evidence doesn't support your traditional views. Except for some of the wiritings attributed to Paul, there is no reason to think *any* of the apostles had *anything* to do with the gospels attributed to them. In fact, most scholarship specifically denies that possibility.

You are making statements claiming facts with not a shred of reasoning or evidence behind them. Notice when I make a statement, I connect it to other things. I give reasons why two different things seem to be connected. I give context. You just simply assert things in such a simplistic manner that it is clear you are just repeating things you think other people have proven and you don't have to even understand what you are talking about.

You glossed over that Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses AND they wrote epistles. You seem to need clarification, epistles are not gospels. The Gospel of John can be clearly and certainly tied to the three epistles in content and style so while the actual writer of the words were not the same people, no one believes they originated from different places. 

I does not even matter at this point. The fact that we are arguing about different interpretations of facts MEANS that I have PROVEN your 'delusion' charge is total and utter crap. In case you need the dots connected, there is a body of evidence/reasons for my belief that is literally impossible for you to prove wrong. You don't actually have positive reasons that my beliefs are obviously wrong WHICH IS the threshold of 'delusional'. 

Exist: have objective reality or being.

Sorry, that only pushes the definition off to the concept of 'reality', which is ultimately equivalent. How do you avoid circular definitions here?

Also, 'objective' requires observation, which limits us to the scientific realm.

You are moving the goal post here. You said that only things inside the universe can 'exist'. That is simply not true. Many scientists posit a multiverse. What do you do with that? Even the fact that we are discussing the concept of a multiverse PROVES that the concept of existing outside the universe is coherent.  Pointing out that definitions are regressive in nature is not a point in your favor. 

'Objective' does not require science. You are really confused on how science works. Science REQUIRES a philosophy of science to even exist. Does the number 4 objectively exist? Does a triangle or the statement p-->q; p therefore q objectively exist? None of these requires science--in fact, the are presupposed by science. Science has nothing to say about God--at all--by definition, by logic. 

Because science is in the business of explaining things by way of physical laws and processes--yet you need the universe to have produced 'magic' which then goes on to violate the laws of the universe that created it. You cannot logically hold together a theory that magical creatures exist as part of this universe. As such, belief in such creatures is delusional.   

Wow. Science as it's core requires the concept of contingency. That's what cause and effect are.

Find *one*modern science text that even mentions the philosophical idea of contingency. That is simply no longer a concept that is relevant for modern science. It is founded on a false and silly metaphysics that has been thoroughly discredited.

Also, while the notions of cause and effect are mostly operative for the macroscopic wolrd, they fail at the subatomic level and below. Causality as classically understood is simply not a part of modern science.

Just wow. I don't even have to go find a scientific text. I just can point to definitions:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   

con·tin·gent
kənˈtinjənt/
adjective

1. 2. occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

Can you see that the whole enterprise of science DEPENDS on the concept of contingency and that without it, science could not happen? 

What is with atheists and quantum mechanics? How many metaphysical truths can be derived from something a) we don't understand and b) is constantly mischaracterized. Quantum particles require (are contingent upon) the quantum energy field. 

Therefore cause/effect (contingency) is CERTAINLY part of 'modern science'. 

Really? You are not even referring to it correctly. I think you mean Church History.

No, I mean the history of how the Bible was written, collected, voted upon, and why it is what we now see. The church history is different and an interesting study of how a religion grows in its initial stages from a local cult to a belief dictated by an emperor.

Your understanding/knowledge of that history is what is being called into question. You don't seem to understand the difference between gospels and epistles and who wrote what. Yet you are so certain our belief is delusional. Your lack of knowledge of what we actually believe AND a charge of 'delusion' are not actually compatible. You ignorance exempts you from even offering an opinion. 

---

Ok, so you are saying that we cannot just insert "gnomes" in, and call it delusional.

Perhaps just the things claimed of evolution, which are not testable and repeatable.  Those which are arrived at through inductive logic.  We can insert "garden gnomes" there, and call them delusional.  This would allow for the evolution, that pretty much no one disagrees with, while still calling the rest delusional.   Would this work for you?

Inductive logic is inherently risky. That is why science (including biology) requires testability of its theories (including evolution). Any part that cannot (even in theory) be tested cannot be held as verified. At *best* such ideas should be eliminated. At worst, they should be acknowledged as useful fictions for building our models.

This is great!! The actual example you use, Evolution, is an entirely inductive enterprise!!!!!!