On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

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'. 

An example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...e_epistles

The Petrine epistles were almost certainly NOT written by Peter.

Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.[1][2][3]

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. 

In this context, a multiverse *would* be considered the universe. it is the sum of all physical things.

'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. 

No, the number 4 does NOT objectively exist. Nor does a triangle nor an implication. Those are *all* language constructs and have no independent existence.

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? 

No, and quite the contrary. In fact, the way that modern science actually works simply doesn't fit into your philosophy.

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. 

What you don't seem to understand is that we *do* understand QM. The 'quantum energy field' isn't anything that *actual* quantum mechanics mentions. You may find it in some popular accounts, but that phrase doesn't appear in, say Peskin&Schroder, one of the standard texts for fundamental particle physics.

What *does* appear is the concept of a quantum field (not a quantum *energy* field). And those quantum fields are fundamentally *non-causal*. They are probabilistic and do NOT obey any law of classical causality.

Before we go on, just how much quantum mechanics have you studied? have you ever solved a differential equation? Gone through the solution of the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom? Calculated a reaction cross section for QED?

I have.

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

Simply false.

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. 

---

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!!!!!!

[/quote]

Again, testability is the crucial aspect. Evolution is, in fact, a testable theory which is *why* it is a scientific one. it is NOT purely inductive in any way that isn't true of any area of science. In fact, it is precisely the issues surrounding the problem of induction that force the requirement of testability and repeatability to be a valid scientific theory.