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

[John 6IX Breezy]

We know by empirical observations that the earth resides in a heliocentric system...

"Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest" -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

I respect your search and your atheism.

[Gwaithmir]

We know by empirical observations that the earth resides in a heliocentric system...

"Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest" -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

I respect your search and your atheism.

You should be aware that, at the time of the release of his book, Hawkins stated, "One can't prove that God does not exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stephen-hawki...d=11571150

Also, what are you attempting to imply by the partial quote from Hawkin's book? Here is the FULL quote:

"A famous example of different pictures of reality is the model introduced around A.D. 150 by Ptolemy (ca. 85–ca. 165) to describe the motion of the celestial bodies. Ptolemy published his work in a treatise explaining reasons for thinking that the earth is spherical, motionless, positioned at the center of the universe, and negligibly small in comparison to the distance of the heavens.

"This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving (except in earthquakes or moments of passion). Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. 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."

[John 6IX Breezy]

You should be aware that, at the time of the release of his book, Hawkins stated, "One can't prove that God does not exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stephen-hawki...d=11571150

I have no objection to that; I agree with Hawking.

Where I perhaps disagree with you, is if you conclude that the existence of something depends on its necessity to explain a phenomenon. Consciousness, for example, is unnecessary for explaining anything the brain does; and yet consciousness fills up the entirety of our experience.

[Gwaithmir]

You should be aware that, at the time of the release of his book, Hawkins stated, "One can't prove that God does not exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stephen-hawki...d=11571150

I have no objection to that; I agree with Hawking.

Where I perhaps disagree with you, is if you conclude that the existence of something depends on its necessity to explain a phenomenon. Consciousness, for example, is unnecessary for explaining anything the brain does; and yet consciousness fills up the entirety of our experience.

Please see updated comment #82.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Please see updated comment #82.

Okay; I saw it.

Do you feel there is something in the expanded quote that changes the meaning?

[Gwaithmir]

Please see updated comment #82.

Okay; I saw it.

Do you feel there is something in the expanded quote that changes the meaning?

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

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

[Smaug]

We know by empirical observations that the earth resides in a heliocentric system...

"Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest" -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

I respect your search and your atheism.

Motion is relative. However, all mass within in our Solar System move about a common point known as Barycenter. Since Sun is a very massive object, this point always remains near it's center of mass. Thus it makes sence to say that Earth goes about the Sun and not the other way around.

---

Every believer thinks his interpretation of god is special and most true, while also ironically thinking the more stable, logical interpretation of the non-believer is false.

Everything is interpretation; that is the nature of information as it interacts with the human brain.

Not all interpretations are equal though. In the old days people thought that lightnings were manifestations of a deity's anger. This is fairly useless and doesn't even give good clues on how to avoid and prevent lightning strikes. Nowadays people have Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. This, on the other hand, allows to not only to explain many electrical phenomena such as lighnings but also to build the numerous electrical machines out there that power modern society. Our understanding of how lightnings work can still be much improved but it's miles ahead of the 'deity's anger' interpretation. Physics can instruct you how to construct a lightning rod with given efficiency and religion cannot. Feel the difference.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

[GrandizerII]

I find the Bayesian approach to be a very fair approach to take when it comes to assessing what is probably true or not. It doesn't have to get me to the exact correct conclusion of course, and there is a lot of subjectivity with the priors, but as long as one is being reasonable in employing this approach by applying reasonable chances of some event happening/not happening given each competing worldview, it helps to lead to the proper adjustments of our credences in each of the competing worldviews, though not necessarily the proper credences.

ETA: never mind. Deleted the bit where I thought it might need some revision on my part.