On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

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.

Notice the path of this point you were trying to make in defense of your 'delusion' claim. You moved from NO eyewitnesses to 2 epistles out of 27. I could cut and paste the next paragraph after the one you quoted that explains why a minority of scholars think Peter did write it. Can you see how far you have actually moved from anything resembling support of your 'delusion' claim? You have lost all ground you were so sure about. 

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.

First, that's called equivocating.

'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.

Hmm. 'Objective' is not the opposite of 'independent'. The number 4 is objective because it refers to a concept this is the very opposite of subjective. The same for a triangle, it is very much objective. So I will restate my answer to your assertion that "objectiveness requires science": that's bunk. There is nothing incoherent with the concept of God "having objective reality or being" aka: exist.  

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.

You keep saying that. Since you don't expound, I will ignore it. 

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.

Congrats. But my point is perhaps you should have taken the time to study philosophy before trying to derive philosophy from QM. The indeterminacy of quantum particles does not turn the idea of cause and effect in the macro world on its ear. You would have to show how quantum indeterminacy affects the macro world. Do you have those conclusions? In their absence we have every reason ever, always, forever to think that cause/effect are objective features of reality. 

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

Simply false.

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. 

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

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.

This is amazing. Evolution is entirely about observing effects and inferring causes. We don't know what caused any major change from a deductive process, ever. We infer big changes from observing small changes--it is the very foundation of the theory from the beginning. In fact, your own worldview relies on vast stretches of inductive reasoning. To say that someone else's inductive reasoning is 'delusional' because it is inductive is just plain spouting nonsense while you ineffectually try to rescue a failed premise: religious beliefs are delusional.