On Hell and Forgiveness

[Bob Kelso]

Ok, and how do we know these things exists outside of the physical universe?

They sometime interact with people in the physical universe, and those people report the interactions.

Would you consider firsthand or eyewitness reports from views outside your own reliable? Such as interactions with other gods or their own personal lore creatures?

[Crossless2.0]

They sometime interact with people in the physical universe, and those people report the interactions.

Would you consider firsthand or eyewitness reports from views outside your own reliable? Such as interactions with other gods or their own personal lore creatures?

Of course not! Assuming those weren't delusional experiences, the 'witness' either (1) misunderstood a clear interaction with [insert approved deity or deity's representative] or (2) are being fooled by demons, who are oddly intent on their damnation.

[Whateverist]

You realize that simply stringing sentences together and calling it an inductive argument doesn't actually meet the bar, right?  

The book of gnome says garden gnomes exist

Many people have seen garden gnomes.

There's no other way gardens could grow without garden gnomes

There's physical evidence for garden gnomes.

Hey, I don't have to be right....but it's rational..right?

Am I an atheist?  Hell no!  I'm a gnomist, deists suck eggs.

[polymath257]

In contrast to deities and garden gnomes, evolution has mountains of evidence that is testable, public, and a theory that is tested and can make predictions of future observations.

Neither the 'evidence' for deities nor for garden gnomes comes anywhere close to that for evolution. In fact, it isn't even nearly as good as the evidence for dark matter.

Pick whichever argument in favor of the existence of deities you please. In NO case does the supposed evidence weigh more than the evidence for garden gnomes.

You don’t seem to understand, you replace evolution with garden gnomes, and therefore it’s delisional. You can even throw in a “from the goo to the zoo” argument to drive the point home.

No, you don't get it. The *evidence* for evolution comes from testable hypotheses and observations. The evidence for neither deities nor garden gnomes is testable. THAT is partly why they are both delusional.

[Whateverist]

To exist *means* to be in the universe.

Believing that reality is bigger than the physical universe is not delusional.

Are the subjective states of physical beings part of the physical universe?  I say they are exactly that.

---

The evidence for neither deities nor garden gnomes is testable. THAT is partly why they are both delusional.

Hey!

[Amarok]

You don’t seem to understand, you replace evolution with garden gnomes, and therefore it’s delisional. You can even throw in a “from the goo to the zoo” argument to drive the point home.

Yeah no evolution is scientific fact you blather is garden gnomes and that saying is creationist garbage .

---

I doubt you've read a full description of such epilepsy then and compared it to Paul's account, because overall they don't match.

Yes i have and yes it does i know don't like that but i don't care

[Neo-Scholastic]

They sometime interact with people in the physical universe, and those people report the interactions.

Would you consider firsthand or eyewitness reports from views outside your own reliable? Such as interactions with other gods or their own personal lore creatures?

I could and have when 1) the person was otherwise high functioning and reputable 2) the experience does not conflict with a clear teaching of scripture.

[John V]

Would you consider firsthand or eyewitness reports from views outside your own reliable? Such as interactions with other gods or their own personal lore creatures?

Depends on the nature of the witness and report. I've already noted a difference between witnesses for God and for garden gnomes.

[SteveII]

You clearly don't know what you are talking about and your statement is an assertion based on...nothing--because you don't even have a handle on the basic facts.  I'll bet you $100 that you don't know of any other group of texts (let alone 27)with extraordinary claims from that time period. The resurrection of Jesus was firmly believed by churches across the Roman empire by 50AD--before any of the books of the NT were even written. How do you account for that? Really--I would like to hear an answer. 

Unless of course he rose from the dead after being crucified. Your incredulity (which is all you have) does not carry any weight against facts of the matter. I'll wait to hear your answer above.

Ah. Your analogy fails. Garden Gnomes are contingent objects, denizens of the universe. Anything objects in the universe are subject to the scrutiny of science. Your Gnomes would fail the scientific test. God, by definition is not a contingent being. You have a category error problem with your analogy. 

I just showed a rational argument from start to finish. I don't even have to be right. But I am certainly rational. You simply assert crap. After seeing the responses in this thread to RR you seem incapable of holding up your end of an argument. All you have are assertions that other people's reasons are somehow defective. You don't/can't even articulate why?  Can't you see that?

Read Livy (the history of Rome) for any number of remarkable claims and corresponding messages from the Gods.

Special pleading concerning 'contingency' is just another aspect of confabulation. To exist *means* to be in the universe. Garden gnomes cannot be detected by ordinary science because of their magical abilities.

Again, firm belief in a delusion isn't evidence of the truth of that delusion. Most of those in the first 500 years had NOTHING to do with the original evidence. Even the *legend* of the resurrection should be held at least as skeptically as the *legend* that the god Pan lead Caesar across the Rubicon.

Livy? Was he making claims about things of which he had personal knowledge? No. So...you don't have a comparison to the 27 books of the NT. You have only proved my point that you don't know what you are talking about in your offhand dismissal of the NT. 

"To exist *means to be in the universe" ??? Really? That is a metaphysical claim that you can not know anything about. 

If garden gnomes have magical abilities, you are positing contingent/emergent magical properties that the universe somehow caused but are not bound by the universe's laws. Science says that is impossible. Your own worldview says that is impossible. Why would I take seriously an impossible analogy? No offence, but between this and the "exists" comment, you don't seem to be equipped to argue metaphysical concepts. 

Your last paragraph is just filled with assertions and proof that you don't know anything about the NT or early church history. It is a fitting end to your series of missteps in support of your 'delusion' argument.

[Bob Kelso]

Would you consider firsthand or eyewitness reports from views outside your own reliable? Such as interactions with other gods or their own personal lore creatures?

Depends on the nature of the witness and report. I've already noted a difference between witnesses for God and for garden gnomes.

Fair enough.

As it stands though, were these incidents of people interacting with the, er, “immaterial” enough to convince you of their existence or was it something else along with them? Aside from the obvious “religious teachings/text” I mean. Kind of a given.

I’m not interested in putting you on trial or a “gotcha moment”, I’m just genuinely curious what you think.