The stumbling block for atheists.

[variant]

I didn't proffer that as my argument, I said that Panentheism would tend to "predict" the observation that humans would hold belief in God, as opposed to LCDM which wouldn't predict anything of the sort. That simply turns out to be an example of a 'useful prediction' made by one cosmology theory vs. another cosmology theory which makes no such prediction.

It is a "prediction" that is entirely unhelpful to differentiate anything.

I'm absolutely not doing any cherry picking. I'm not ascribing anything to the universe/God which doesn't show up here on Earth. Unlike LCDM, I'm not introducing even a single supernatural element into the discussion to describe God as the universe. All I'm doing is noting that one purely empirical definition of God happens to "predict" that people will/do hold belief in God. Even after introducing 4 supernatural constructs to describe the universe, LCDM doesn't even make such a prediction. Score one useful "prediction" about the nature of the universe for Panentheism.

You haven't actually explained anything either, and I am skeptical that you can do so without invoking many elements that would be beyond "supernatural".

How would I tell the difference between between someone claiming to experience love for me, vs. someone being delusional?

You can tell how people feel about you based upon how they act.

So this basic criticism applies to emotions in general?

That doesn't seem to be anything like what I said.

God either objectively exists or it does not, and in a world where it does not then people who think they experience God are experiencing something else.

Can I rely upon someone to be a good judge of what they're talking about with respect to something like "dark energy' when they can't even name a single source of the stuff? You could choose to rely upon other people to be a good judge of their own experiences, but you choose not to.

I don't rely on people because they are generally unreliable on things where their experience is not immediate and usual. If they want to demonstrate something uniquely outside their normal experience then I apply rigorous skepticism.

By function I meant that they're carrying current like similar living structures. Yes, I can know that particular function (carrying current) as well as anything else I might "know" about the universe.

The function you have to demonstrate is that carrying current is significantly like the types of biology that produces awareness.

I cited another example of a neutron crust containing structures are similar to structures found in living cells.

And that seems to be where your ideas begin and end.

I think we'd have to have some prior agreement on what types of "evidence" you might accept. We certainly see the same basic elements in the universe as we find on Earth and in our bodies.

I can agree with you that one picture looks something like the other and that there are current carrying bodies in space.

Suffice to say that even without any of the things that you seem to be personally requiring of me, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the cosmology model which I'm proposing is at least "equal" to current cosmology theory in explaining various observations from space, and it's far superior in the sense that it is based strictly upon empirical physics. LCDM can't even answer basic questions about the supernatural elements that are being inserted into it, like where dark energy comes from, or how I'd go about testing "space expansion' in controlled experimentation. You're definitely requiring a *much* higher standard of evidence of me, and a much *broader and more detailed* level of evidence of me than you're requiring of LCDM. I assume you 'lack belief' in every cosmology theory under the sun at this point in time?

My general skepticism about what we understand about the universe is indeed fairly broad.

I'm doing you a favor, and I have taken your ideas seriously. This constant complaining about theoretical physics, to me, just sounds like bellyacheing.

If you want to produce an actual empirical theory you should expect to be treated with skepticism from people who will definitely point out the flaws in whatever work you produce. It will never be enough to convince serious people to simply turn around and point at the flaws in other ideas.

If you actually did coursework in real science this should be second nature to you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You seem to be imposing a *much* more stringent standard on Panentheism than upon LCDM descriptions of the universe. What's up with that?

I'm imposing no standards on either in this discussion, I'm explaining what the atheists whose opinions I'm aware of think about it, and (broadly) why they think that. I don't recall any of them expressing any opinion about panentheism - most have probably never heard of it. The opinions about god they've mentioned to me were in regard of the popular Abrahamic god concepts.

 

[Michael]

I'm imposing no standards on either in this discussion, I'm explaining what the atheists whose opinions I'm aware of think about it, and (broadly) why they think that. I don't recall any of them expressing any opinion about panentheism - most have probably never heard of it. The opinions about god they've mentioned to me were in regard of the popular Abrahamic god concepts.

The term "Abrahamic God concept" seems to mean completely different things to different individuals as evidenced by the differences between Christianity and Islam, as well as different definitions between theists and atheists. It is also typically a bit vague in terms of physics.

IMO the real "stumbling block" for atheists shows up the moment one hands them a purely empirical definition of God to work with. It's not something they seem to be well prepared for, nor all that interested in discussing. They seem much more interested in focusing on the "low hanging fruit" minutia of various religious beliefs.

It also seems pretty common practice for atheists to apply two completely different standards of evidence as it relates to the topic of God, vs. any other scientific hypothesis. It's fine IMO if they prefer a purely empirical standard of evidence *everywhere* on every topic, but that's typically not how it works in my experience. Often times, evangelical atheists like Krauss and Tyson will rail loudly and vehemently against "supernatural" constructs only as it relates to religion, while peddling four supernatural constructs of their own. It's just silly and hypocritical behavior IMO.

Admittedly however, that particular criticism seems to vary dramatically with the individual.

 

[Michael]

It is a "prediction" that is entirely unhelpful to differentiate anything.

How exactly does one differentiate between the value of various cosmology theories other than to see what logical predictions they make, and seeing how well that agrees with observation?

For instance, how would you decide if EU/PC theory *without* theistic overtones is 'better than' Panentheism based on EU/PC theory unless you looked at what the differences might be with respect to observations and conditions on Earth?

Does the current scientific theory even "predict" anything rather than 'postdict' something based on observation?

You haven't actually explained anything either, and I am skeptical that you can do so without invoking many elements that would be beyond "supernatural".

I'm unclear what exactly you want me to explain. I can certainly explain where to find the published materials to support a steady state universe theory, circuit theory as it applies to plasma physics, etc. You seem to require me to directly demonstrate that the universe is "aware" while you play the role of judge, jury and executioner with respect to "evidence".

Are you even interested in understanding the physics underpinnings of EU/PC theory as it relates to basic cosmology theory and physics?

Does This Light Experiment Disprove The Big Bang Theory?

Here for instance is a relatively recently published paper that explains how redshift works in a steady state universe theory from the perspective of mathematics and physics. In and of itself it doesn't demonstrate that the universe is 'aware', but it does demonstrate that it could be a "steady state' universe rather than an expanding universe, with would make it more likely for Panentheism to have scientific potential and merit.

Does that kind of information even matter to you?

You can tell how people feel about you based upon how they act.

Is the gift of life and awareness an act which I can subjectively 'judge'?

That doesn't seem to be anything like what I said.

Well, we're going to have to discuss the 'realness' of things like emotions and emotional interactions between "individuals" somewhere in this conversation if we're going to discuss why humans hold belief in God.

God either objectively exists or it does not, and in a world where it does not then people who think they experience God are experiencing something else.

Well the universe certainly exists, and it's existence might go a long way to explaining human experiences on Earth, depending on how one defines that world.

I don't rely on people because they are generally unreliable on things where their experience is not immediate and usual. If they want to demonstrate something uniquely outside their normal experience then I apply rigorous skepticism.

I can relate to your skepticism as applied to topics like dark energy and dark matter and claims that fall outside of normal human experience. I experience gravity to be sure, but not "dark matter", or "dark energy". My spidey senses start to tingle the moment we start deviating from empirical physics in fact.

On the other hand, some experiences might not be "usual" for me personally, like seeing a kangaroo in my backyard, or some other unique human experience, but they might very well be very usual experiences for others. I can't automatically reject the validity of all experiences which might fall outside of "my personal comfort level", or my personal experience set.

The function you have to demonstrate is that carrying current is significantly like the types of biology that produces awareness.

It's significantly "like" biological transfers of electrons and ions. How exactly are we defining "significantly like"? How like? How significantly?

And that seems to be where your ideas begin and end.

How do you figure? I can site *tons* of evidence to support the EU/PC orientation of cosmology theory which is necessary to provide the physics foundation of this whole discussion. I"m not sure that you're even personally willing to look at nor consider the implications of those published materials, observations and mathematical models.

In terms of current flow, mass layout patterns, and various features, I can provide similarities for your consideration, but that doesn't mean that you are personally going to be swayed by those particular arguments. It's not even clear to me what type of evidence that you would accept which I might be actually able of providing given the limits of cosmology and physics.

I can agree with you that one picture looks something like the other and that there are current carrying bodies in space.

So basically I can make two unique predictions which pop right out of Panentheism and which aren't even necessarily "predicted" in current cosmology theory. Is that "evidence' to favor one cosmology theory over another in your opinion?

My general skepticism about what we understand about the universe is indeed fairly broad.

That would be consistent with the rest of your beliefs.

I'm doing you a favor, and I have taken your ideas seriously. This constant complaining about theoretical physics, to me, just sounds like bellyacheing.

I'm only pointing out that "science" doesn't require an empirical standard of 'evidence', particularly as it relates to cosmology theories in general. It's not fair to expect me to *exceed* scientific standards of evidence. That seems to be what you're doing when you just handwave at observations that tend to favor one cosmology theory over another.

If you want to produce an actual empirical theory you should expect to be treated with skepticism from people who will definitely point out the flaws in whatever work you produce. It will never be enough to convince serious people to simply turn around and point at the flaws in other ideas.

I'm not suggesting that Panentheism is right simply because LCDM is wrong. I am however going to look for ways to compare different theories, and the standards of evidence must be consistent across the board.

If you actually did coursework in real science this should be second nature to you.

I hear you, and I've published papers in support of EU/PC theory as well. I really don't see how anyone would or could begin to embrace or even entertain the concept of Panentheism without first embracing EU/PC theory. For starters, a time limited universe seems less likely to produce a living universe than a universe that has existed eternally. Without understanding the electrical aspects, it's probably not going to make much sense either.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The term "Abrahamic God concept" seems to mean completely different things to different individuals as evidenced by the differences between Christianity and Islam, as well as different definitions between theists and atheists. It is also typically a bit vague in terms of physics.

Quite; that was my point.

IMO the real "stumbling block" for atheists shows up the moment one hands them a purely empirical definition of God to work with.

Such as?

It's not something they seem to be well prepared for, nor all that interested in discussing.

People in general are ill-prepared for the unfamiliar, and typically less interested in discussing fringe views or beliefs. Here I'm assuming you're not referring to mainstream theistic beliefs, because I've yet to encounter empirical definitions for those.

It also seems pretty common practice for atheists to apply two completely different standards of evidence as it relates to the topic of God, vs. any other scientific hypothesis.

So you keep saying, but your argument rests on a persistent misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of science and how scientists (not all of whom are atheists) view it.

 

[Michael]

Quite; that was my point.

Ok.

Such as?

Such as Pantheism and Panentheism specifically. Pretty much any empirical definition of God would do, but those are the two more(st) common ones.

People in general are ill-prepared for the unfamiliar, and typically less interested in discussing fringe views or beliefs. Here I'm assuming you're not referring to mainstream theistic beliefs, because I've yet to encounter empirical definitions for those.

There aren't any set empirically tested definitions for dark matter, dark energy, inflation or even "space expansion", yet atheists *rarely if ever* "lack belief" in those claims. They tend to be more "skeptical" toward things like M-theory, or QM definitions of gravity, but they don't seem to be as dismissive of those "fringe" scientific beliefs as they are toward even empirical definitions of the term "God".

So you keep saying, but your argument rests on a persistent misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of science and how scientists (not all of whom are atheists) view it.

How *exactly* (be specific) have I misrepresented the "nature of science" in any way? I'm the one that constantly has to point out to atheists that science has never restricted itself to empirical cause/effect definitions of "evidence", because atheists are always running around claiming that there is no "evidence" of the existence of God.

Atheists are constantly putting *themselves personally* into the role of the judge and jury of what specifically counts as "evidence", and they routinely ignore the consensus on the topic, whereas they simply accept "consensus" on pretty much any "scientific" topic under sun, even concepts that introduce *multiple* supernatural constructs and for which there is no direct cause/effect "evidence". There's rarely even a consistent use of the concept of 'evidence' in terms of how atheists tend to apply that term to the topic of God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Such as Pantheism and Panentheism specifically. Pretty much any empirical definition of God would do, but those are the two more(st) common ones.

They're certainly not common in the atheist circles I'm familiar with - pantheism is generally only mentioned in lists of religious ideas, and occasionally when questioning whether Einstein was religious (no) or whether Spinoza was pantheist (debatable). I've never heard panentheism even mentioned outside these forums, and I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it. So when you make a generalisation about atheists 'having a real stumbling block' about 'Pantheism and Panentheism specifically', I suspect it's based on a very small sample, and for the reasons I mentioned previously (unfamiliarity).

There aren't any set empirically tested definitions for dark matter, dark energy, inflation or even "space expansion", yet atheists *rarely if ever* "lack belief" in those claims. They tend to be more "skeptical" toward things like M-theory, or QM definitions of gravity, but they don't seem to be as dismissive of those "fringe" scientific beliefs as they are toward even empirical definitions of the term "God".

Another irrelevant tu-quoque. You referred to "... a purely empirical definition of God...", I suggested that would presumably not be a mainstream theistic belief - expecting you to agree or explain what definition you actually meant, and you come back with a diatribe on atheist views of physics... Your fixation with the perceived failings of the standard model seems to be impairing your ability to follow a discussion.

How *exactly* (be specific) have I misrepresented the "nature of science" in any way? I'm the one that constantly has to point out to atheists that science has never restricted itself to empirical cause/effect definitions of "evidence", because atheists are always running around claiming that there is no "evidence" of the existence of God.

I've explained this several times previously, but in summary: Your characterisation of scientific hypotheses as invoking 'supernatural' phenomena is a case in point; your apparent confusion between 'scientists' and 'atheists'; your confusion (or perhaps equivocation) between dogmatic belief or lack of belief in a religious sense, and provisional belief or lack of belief that some theory or hypothesis is the best available explanatory & predictive model for observations (i.e. evidence).

 

[Strathos]

Looks like Michael has hijacked another thread...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Looks like Michael has hijacked another thread...

One tries to discourage him from doing so, but he just can't help it. It's just a perpetual cycle of rinse and repeat.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Panentheism would tend to "predict" the observation that humans would hold belief in God...

Just out of interest, how does it predict that? (outside of circular arguments, such as definitions of Panentheism that specify that it influences human brains to hold god beliefs).

Seems to me that the panentheist entity you describe would be so far from human spatial or temporal scales as to have no discernable influence, i.e. to be irrelevant. Both evolutionary psychology and beliefs in personal deities (e.g. Abrahamic religions) would seem to have a far better claim to predicting god beliefs.

If that's the best prediction you have for panentheism, meh. If you have something better, what is it?

 

[bhsmte]

Looks like Michael has hijacked another thread...

Shocker!

 

[Michael]

They're certainly not common in the atheist circles I'm familiar with - pantheism is generally only mentioned in lists of religious ideas, and occasionally when questioning whether Einstein was religious (no) or whether Spinoza was pantheist (debatable). I've never heard panentheism even mentioned outside these forums, and I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it. So when you make a generalisation about atheists 'having a real stumbling block' about 'Pantheism and Panentheism specifically', I suspect it's based on a very small sample, and for the reasons I mentioned previously (unfamiliarity).

Any *empirical* definition of God would do the trick actually, and the stumbling block for atheists is probably somewhat larger in scope actually. The problem relates to *any* type of comparison of the term 'evidence' as it's used in "science", vs. the way atheists tend to apply that term to the topic of God.

The moment that we look at any sort of deviation from empirical physics in the realm of science, atheists tend to get themselves in trouble, and demonstrate the nature of their different uses of the term "evidence" at it relates to the topic of God.

Another irrelevant tu-quoque. You referred to "... a purely empirical definition of God...", I suggested that would presumably not be a mainstream theistic belief - expecting you to agree or explain what definition you actually meant, and you come back with a diatribe on atheist views of physics... Your fixation with the perceived failings of the standard model seems to be impairing your ability to follow a discussion.

It's just an area of "science" where the whole atheist argument tends to fall apart because atheists typically buy LCMD theory hook line and sinker while ignoring even *empirical* definitions of the term God. It's just an obvious example of where the atheist position with respect to the term 'evidence' tends to go to hell in a handbasket. I suppose it also applies to non-standard definitions of gravity or particle physics, but those aren't as useful examples because they tend to be "non-standard" definitions, vs. "standard science" in the case of LCDM.

The standard cosmology theory is just low hanging fruit in terms of an obvious example of where the term "evidence" isn't applied *empirically* in the realm of science in terms of actual cause/effect demonstrations.

It's also kinda fun to poke holes in LCDM during the discussion of the term "evidence". It's just a bonus.

I've explained this several times previously, but in summary: Your characterisation of scientific hypotheses as invoking 'supernatural' phenomena is a case in point;

Oh boloney. There's nothing any less "supernatural" about "space expansion" than God. Space expansion doesn't "naturally" cause photon redshift in the lab, whereas *many* other types of phenomenon do cause photon redshift in the lab. The whole concept of space expansion is a purely hypothetical and a completely 'supernatural' cause of photon redshift. It's not a "natural" phenomenon here on Earth or anywhere else that can be demonstrated in real cause/effect experimentation with real control mechanisms.

your apparent confusion between 'scientists' and 'atheists';

I have no confusion about that distinction. That's your own strawman. It just so happens that some of the most famous evangelical atheists happen to be 'scientists' that hold belief in supernatural constructs galore.

your confusion (or perhaps equivocation) between dogmatic belief or lack of belief in a religious sense, and provisional belief or lack of belief that some theory or hypothesis is the best available explanatory & predictive model for observations (i.e. evidence).

IMO you're just horrifically naive about the way that "scientists" tend to hold belief. Scientists have literally spent *billions* of dollars looking for exotic forms of matter in the lab to no avail. More importantly, all the mass estimation techniques that have been used by the mainstream for the past 50 years have been shown to be horrifically flawed, including the discovery of two different "halos" of ordinary matter in just the past 5 years. There's absolutely, positively *no* evidence to support the existence of exotic forms of matter, but since many people's livelihoods are directly wrapped up in those 'searches', the 'searches' continue, along with the dogma.

I don't think you even know the difference between what a "prediction" might be with respect to astronomy in particular. Almost everything about LCMD is a *postdicted* fit to some observation that was already known at the time, including Guth's whole claim about homogeneity, flatness, etc as it relates to cosmology theory.

I also have no clue what you personally mean by the term "explanatory" power as it relates to placeholder terms for human ignorance which make up a full 95 percent of LCMD *before* we even try to include inflation into a "big bang" theory.

The cosmology debate is just a great example of how atheists tend to apply ridiculously different standards of evidence. How in the universe is "God did/does it with electricity" have any less "explanatory" power than "inflation, dark energy and dark matter did it with 5 percent plasma"?

Sheesh. The double standards are simply off scale as it relates to the way that atheists typically hold belief in the supernatural constructs galore of "science", whereas they typically reject anything that has to do with the topic of God, even if the term 'God' is defined in a purely empirical manner.

 

[Michael]

Just out of interest, how does it predict that? (outside of circular arguments, such as definitions of Panentheism that specify that it influences human brains to hold god beliefs).

Both the human brain and the universe itself are electromagnetic and chemical in nature. The chemical aspect doesn't really describe a God/human relationship that might lead to "belief" in God unless the belief is based on the concept of pure grace and appreciation of life itself, but the EM aspect just might explain the human brain/God connection in terms of EM transactions.

Seems to me that the panentheist entity you describe would be so far from human spatial or temporal scales as to have no discernable influence, i.e. to be irrelevant.

One would have to make a whole host of assumptions about the universe and about awareness that I am not personally making to arrive at that conclusion.

Both evolutionary psychology and beliefs in personal deities (e.g. Abrahamic religions) would seem to have a far better claim to predicting god beliefs.

How so? You don't figure that your "opinion" is rather 'subjective' at some points along the way?

If that's the best prediction you have for panentheism, meh. If you have something better, what is it?

Actually it would also tend to predict that some of the same 'structures' which we observe inside of living organisms on Earth are also found to exist at the largest scales which we might observe.

That's at least two unique "testable" predictions that can be made by Panentheism which cannot even be made with LCMD theory, and both observations have more 'evidence in support' of those "predictions" than 'dark matter' theory without requiring 3 more supernatural add-ons.

This is where atheists always have to 'punt'.

 

[quatona]

Any *empirical* definition of God would do the trick actually,

Sure, if you´d define "God" as that pen on my desk, I would be a theist. Likewise if you define "God" as the universe. Unfortunately, we´d both get in trouble with the vast majority of self-professing theists. So it seems you misattribute the actual problem: It´s not atheism that will fight an empirical definition of "God", it´s classical monotheism.

 

[Michael]

Sure, if you´d define "God" as that pen on my desk, I would be a theist. Likewise if you define "God" as the universe. Unfortunately, we´d both get in trouble with the vast majority of self-professing theists. So it seems you misattribute the actual problem: It´s not atheism that will fight an empirical definition of "God", it´s classical monotheism.

I'd certainly agree that a purely empirical definition of God is not exactly a 'popular' concept in general with any particular group. I don't see much public resistance to the idea from theists however, even if they aren't convinced of it's merits. Panentheism can certainly be reconciled with classical monotheism, regardless of it's 'popularity'.

Panentheism - Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...IMO you're just horrifically naive about the way that "scientists" tend to hold belief....

Well, no. I have a science degree, had a career in science working with scientists, I regularly meet and talk to scientists, go to science conferences, read science books, blogs, and articles, and watch science videos. I have quite a good idea about the way scientists tend to hold belief about science. There are plenty of talks from science conferences online, where you can see for yourself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Both the human brain and the universe itself are electromagnetic and chemical in nature. The chemical aspect doesn't really describe a God/human relationship that might lead to "belief" in God unless the belief is based on the concept of pure grace and appreciation of life itself, but the EM aspect just might explain the human brain/God connection in terms of EM transactions.

You said, "Panentheism would tend to "predict" the observation that humans would hold belief in God.." - "just might explain" is not a prediction. How does Panentheism predict that observation?

How do you go from both the human brain and the universe sharing an electromagnetic and chemical nature, to 'therefore we should expect humans to have God beliefs'?

[Note that the human brain is part of the universe, and if the universe is 'electromagnetic and chemical in nature', then everything is... So you're effectively saying that everything having an electromagnetic and chemical nature predicts God beliefs - can you explain?]

... it would also tend to predict that some of the same 'structures' which we observe inside of living organisms on Earth are also found to exist at the largest scales which we might observe.

How does it predict that? what happens on a cosmological scale is not Earth-like cellular biochemistry. You're making the same error as above - trying to retrofit observations to your theory; that's not prediction.

 

[Michael]

Well, no. I have a science degree, had a career in science working with scientists, I regularly meet and talk to scientists, go to science conferences, read science books, blogs, and articles, and watch science videos. I have quite a good idea about the way scientists tend to hold belief about science. There are plenty of talks from science conferences online, where you can see for yourself.

I can see for myself that we've wasted billions of dollars on a fruitless dark matter snipe hunt that was never warranted or necessary to start with. I can see for myself that all the null results are never used to "falsify" anything. I can also see for myself how much *misinformation* that the mainstream posts about EU/PC theory. I know how highly controlled the astronomy websites are too. I know *exactly* how "science" is being practiced in the real world as it relates to cosmology, and it's nothing like the brochure.

 

[Michael]

You said, "Panentheism would tend to "predict" the observation that humans would hold belief in God.." - "just might explain" is not a prediction. How does Panentheism predict that observation?

It predicts a mechanism for an interaction between a living "high power' and the human brain, specifically the EM field.

How do you go from both the human brain and the universe sharing an electromagnetic and chemical nature, to 'therefore we should expect humans to have God beliefs'?

It predicts that the EM field is a potential mechanism of communication.

[Note that the human brain is part of the universe, and if the universe is 'electromagnetic and chemical in nature', then everything is... So you're effectively saying that everything having an electromagnetic and chemical nature predicts God beliefs - can you explain?]

How does it predict that? what happens on a cosmological scale is not Earth-like cellular biochemistry. You're making the same error as above - trying to retrofit observations to your theory; that's not prediction.

That the *mechanism* is EM field related is a "prediction". Retrofitting a theory to observations has been a hallmark of current theory, including most recently it's use of "dark energy" as metaphysical gap filler to explain SN1A observations. Guth didn't "predict" a homogeneous layout of matter, he retrofitted the observation of homogeneity into his theory, as well as the "flatness" claim to fame which Penrose later demonstrated to be 10 to the 100th paper *less* likely with inflation than without it. Retrofitting is a time honored tradition in cosmology theory I'm afraid.

 

[Radrook]

Funny how no one mentions the belief that God cooks people alive forever in a torture chamber he created for that purpose as a stumbling block.