[Serious] What God's justification for eternal torment?

[Gwaithmir]

I asked what point you were trying to make via the quote?

You said we know by empirical observations that the earth resides in a heliocentric system. I wanted to show that this isn't the case and empirical observations can support either model. Or as your expanded quote explained, we choose one model because it's easier to work with.

The same applies to questions of God.

Wrong! Empirical observations support the heliocentric system. This is why you've abbreviated the Hawkins quote. You might as well argue that the earth is flat. The heliocentric model is not only easier to use, it's the correct one, as science has confirmed long ago.

Mainstream Christianity has defined God's attributes, and those attributes do not correspond to reality. Neither do they pass rational scrutiny. God, as defined by mainstream Christianity, does not exist.

[John 6IX Breezy]

This is why you've abbreviated the Hawkins quote.

Nothing was abbreviated; quotations are by their very nature excerpts. And your own "full" quote supports my position:

"The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest."

[Pat Mustard]

And millions of religious people think hell is a good thing and justified, which goes to show that these are not sane people.

God exists and everyone knows it.

I don't know that god exists in the generic extent*. I have been provided with no evidence for its existence.

*I can be confident that the god of the bible, however, doesn't exist. There is plenty of evidence in the bible to prove that.

[Smaug]

Thus it makes sence to say that Earth goes about the Sun and not the other way around.

When something makes sense, you are adding subjective value to it. There is nothing objective about something making sense; it is dependant on your particular brain, and it tends to be uncontrollable and seemingly arbitrary. You could be stuck learning a math problem, fall asleep, and in the morning everything suddenly makes sense.

The epicycles of a geocentric universe make sense, for example, so try to substitute "making sense" with a more measurable claim: the heliocentric model makes the least number of predictions, etc.

It is difficult to divorce the science from the scientist, but we can at least be mindful of where one ends and the other begins.

If you'd like to be more exact you can say that when considering motion of the planets of Solar system taking the system's barycenter or the Sun's center of mass as a reference point allows to obtain their equations of motion in the most simple form.

Heliocentric model was a very big step forward from the epicycles and earlier astronomical concepts. Astronomers were making observations for centuries but in the geocentric coordinates they were too confusing to make any general assumptions about the laws of motion. Adoption of Heliocentrism and Kepler's study of Martian orbit paved way for Newton's Theory of Gravitation.

[John 6IX Breezy]

[The Grand Nudger]

Might be why we imagine simple wizards in place of complex natural interactions.

[Mister Agenda]

I remember when an Orthodox Christian friend of mine was going on about the baroque elegance of geocentric calculations and how simplicity doesn't mean correct. I was like, 'but gravity!'.

[Smaug]

[Drich]

[Angrboda]

Hey! I know that slime trail!