On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

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.

Ok, I will concede the things of evolution that you can demonstrate.    Which would not count your just so story in the other thread concerning morality and evolution, as well as most any claim of common descent.  It excludes historical sciences as well, as history, cannot be repeated.   It also seems that your assertions for an actual infinity cannot be demonstrated by the methods that you suggest here. I believe you defined math as a set of assumptions based on assumed rules, to reach a conclusion.    So we will just replace them with "garden gnomes" and call them delusional.  

Note:   I can see the appeal of this method, it takes very little thought, understanding or effort really.

Yes, those who think the number 4 actually exists in the real world are delusional. it is a language construct in a formal system.

Historical sciences also base their techniques on hypothesis formation, testability, etc. Repeatability isn't required for the specific events, but rather for the success of the techniques used.

The question of the existence of an actual infinity cannot be resolved in a purely philosophical way. That is part of my point. It has to be based on observation and testable predictions. There is no self-contradiction of the concept.

I would suggest your problem is that religion 'takes little thought, understanding, or effort'. Maybe you would benefit by putting a bit more effort into your studies of other subjects.