What type of "evidence" of God would an atheist accept?

[lesliedellow]

The 'fire' of gehenna in Judaism was a cleansing related process related to coming to terms with one's sin while on Earth. Even to this day there is no concept of eternal torment in Judaism. Why is that?

What twenty first century Jews believe is of zero relevance to what first century Pharisees believed. You sound like one of the militant atheists who think they know better than first century authors whether or not a place called Nazareth existed in the first century. Josephus was a first century Jew, and you are not.

What would even be the point of creating a "being" or collection of beings which you intended from their conception and birth to torment for the whole of eternity?

Perhaps you should ask St Paul, towards the end of Romans 9. Not that you are going to like the answer.

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

 

[quatona]

That's probably more true today, but not so much in the 1st and 2nd and 3rd century AD.

Origen - Wikipedia

Yes, the amount and diversity of Christian God concepts can be overwhelming.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, the amount and diversity of Christian God concepts can be overwhelming.

Ask half a dozen historians for their take on Elizabethan England, and you will get half a dozen different answers. Very few subjects have the luxury of verifying their ideas through empirical observation, or of relying upon a set of axioms and purely deductive argumentation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You can't just handwave away the idea based on the fact that "alternative" expanations might exist.

I'm telling you that alternative interpretations do exist, so superluminal quantum state transfer is only one possibility. All leading interpretations are consistent with the quantum formalism, which is what it is - and it doesn't allow the superluminal transfer of classical information.

I'm not suggesting that we personally can transfer information that way yet, I'm simply noting there's a faster than light speed mechanism that is proposed (and experimented with) in QM.

A mechanism that can't do what you recruited it for. An analogy would be looking at the beam of a pulsar sweeping round, and thinking that since, at great distances, the beam is traversing across the universe faster than light, there could be a potential FTL communication method there.

The particle flow itself is constant, perhaps eternal too...

Constant but classical.

The so called "burden of proof" which is used in astronomy is not the same as the burden that you're trying to impose on me personally, or more specifically trying to impose on the entire topic of God.
... You're asking for more than *any* cosmology theory requires.

It's very simple - *any* cosmology theory is required to be consistent with physical laws. If your hypothesis makes a claim that violates physical law, you need to make a plausible argument for a rethink of physical law based either on new data or a plausible reworking of the underlying mathematics. You have neither, just wishful thinking.

I critiqued your theory of a physical cosmic brain which you claimed was structurally and functionally similar to a biological brain and used electromagnetic communication. You can call it God, or whatever you like, but the burden of proof for this particular idea is clearly not related to the 'entire topic' of God.

You're not only requiring that the proposed mechanism must be *demonstrated*, you're also requiring me personally to control it! Double standard much?

I haven't asked for either. If your idea isn't consistent with physical law it's pseudoscience.

You're not using the same standards of evidence that are used in science in the first place.

All scientific hypotheses must conform to physical law to be taken seriously.

I'm simply noting that a proposed faster than C mechanism, and the effect itself isn't shy around the lab. In fact it's been measured to be at least 10,000 times faster than C. I didn't claim that we personally could currently transmit information faster than C, but I can't logically rule out that possibility for all time, and for all forms of intelligence.

If you read the links I gave you, you'll understand why it can't.

Worse yet, you never even demonstrated it's necessary in the first place.

You introduced the idea after I explained why a cosmic brain functionally and structurally analogous to a biological brain, and using electromagnetic information transfer, wouldn't have had time to complete a thought since the start of life on Earth.

I don't know why you even thought it was a sensible proposition...

... many options are yet to be explored in terms of not only being able to "measure" the quantum state of the photon, but also alter it "slightly" from other photons with the hope of inducing a reaction in the entangled particle. A large change might break the entanglement, but a smaller, subtler change might not.

There is a way of probing quantum systems without 'collapsing' them - it's called 'weak measurement', but it doesn't help your crackpot cosmic brain idea.

I really have no idea how you can logically rule out what might be possible in the future if in fact the 'popular' interpretation of entanglement is correct.

It doesn't matter which interpretation is 'correct', and I don't logically rule it out, QM rules it out. You have the relevant links - read them.

 

[quatona]

Ask half a dozen historians for their take on Elizabethan England, and you will get half a dozen different answers.

And if they all would declare their take on that age the source of "truth" and "unconditional love", I would be equally overwhelmed.

Very few subjects have the luxury of verifying their ideas through empirical observation, or of relying upon a set of axioms and purely deductive argumentation.

Yes, so what´s that got to do with what we discussed?

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, so wha´s that got to do with what we discussed?

It has to do with the way atheists try to make a big think out of the fact that different Christians, or groups of Christians, interpret the Bible in different ways. Theology is scarcely alone in having varying schools of thought.

 

[quatona]

It has to do with the way atheists try to make a big think out of the fact that different Christians, or groups of Christians, interpret the Bible in different ways.

So it didn´t address my point, as made in the context of the discussion. Ok.

 

[Michael]

I'm telling you that alternative interpretations do exist, so superluminal quantum state transfer is only one possibility.

In terms of cosmology theory, it absolutely, positively *does not matter* if alternative explanations do exist or they don't! There definitely *are* alternatives to exotic matter theory too, starting with MOND theory. There are empirical alternatives to space expansion too. The fact that there are alternative explanations to various observations doesn't eliminate anything from consideration in cosmology theory in general, so what difference does it make?

All leading interpretations are consistent with the quantum formalism, which is what it is - and it doesn't allow the superluminal transfer of classical information.

It is a mechanism that travels faster than C in QM. That's far more than you can demonstrate for "expanding space".

A mechanism that can't do what you recruited it for. An analogy would be looking at the beam of a pulsar sweeping round, and thinking that since, at great distances, the beam is traversing across the universe faster than light, there could be a potential FTL communication method there.

At the moment it cannot be demonstrated in the lab to do what it's recruited for, but that's never been a requirement in cosmology theory in the first place. You're again *assuming* what might or might not be possible with the mechanism by *all* forms of intelligence for the whole of time. I don't buy that claim.

Constant but classical.

Ya, *except*, somewhere in the mainstream's "classical" expansion theory, C isn't the speed limit of information or expansion.

It's very simple - *any* cosmology theory is required to be consistent with physical laws.

There goes the LCDM model in a big puff of smoke. They had to *invent* four new hypothetical physical processes because the current "physical laws" won't fit their model.

If your hypothesis makes a claim that violates physical law, you need to make a plausible argument for a rethink of physical law based either on new data or a plausible reworking of the underlying mathematics. You have neither, just wishful thinking.

Entangled photons make a picture from a paradox

There's nothing "wishful thinking" about it.

I critiqued your theory of a physical cosmic brain which you claimed was structurally and functionally similar to a biological brain and used electromagnetic communication. You can call it God, or whatever you like, but the burden of proof for this particular idea is clearly not related to the 'entire topic' of God.

You're absolutely *not* applying the *same* burden of proof that exists in science today, and exists in the 'scientific' description of the universe. If you aren't applying your standards of evidence *equally*, then it must be a bias related to the topic of God rather than cosmology theory in general.

I haven't asked for either. If your idea isn't consistent with physical law it's pseudoscience.

So you consider LCDM to also be "pseudoscience" I presume?

Entangled photons make a picture from a paradox

How can you explain this kind of image without a faster than C mechanism that *changes* the other photon?

All scientific hypotheses must conform to physical law to be taken seriously.

It not only conforms to those physical laws, it's based upon idea that show up in the lab, including that image I just cited.

If you read the links I gave you, you'll understand why it can't.

I have to *agree* with all of their opinions in order for that to happen. I'd first have to hear one of you explain that image.

You introduced the idea after I explained why a cosmic brain functionally and structurally analogous to a biological brain, and using electromagnetic information transfer, wouldn't have had time to complete a thought since the start of life on Earth.

You haven't demonstrated that a "thought" has to occur *outside* of the solar system itself! You're talking about *non local communication of thought to some other distant region of space*.

I don't know why you even thought it was a sensible proposition...

Well, for starters, I don't even *know* what the propagation speed of 'awareness' might be in the first place. For all I know that could *also* be a faster than C quantum process. I have no evidence that for "thought" to occur, it has to happen *outside* of the solar system in the first place.

There is a way of probing quantum systems without 'collapsing' them - it's called 'weak measurement', but it doesn't help your crackpot cosmic brain idea.

Explain to me then how photons which didn't interact with an image can produce that image?
Entangled photons make a picture from a paradox

It doesn't matter which interpretation is 'correct', and I don't logically rule it out, QM rules it out. You have the relevant links - read them.

No, QM doesn't rule it out, or rule it in. You're the one taking a hard nosed position on the topic, not just in terms of what we can do now, but what might be possible for all time, for all forms of intelligence.

 

[Michael]

Yes, the amount and diversity of Christian God concepts can be overwhelming.

Indeed, and that's but one "religion".

 

[Michael]

What twenty first century Jews believe is of zero relevance to what first century Pharisees believed.

Jesus spent more time *chastising* the Pharisees rather than agreeing with them.

You sound like one of the militant atheists who think they know better than first century authors whether or not a place called Nazareth existed in the first century. Josephus was a first century Jew, and you are not.

So what? Where can you demonstrate that Judaism has ever changed in terms of it's lack of belief in eternal torment? When did you even quote Josephus in this thread?

Perhaps you should ask St Paul, towards the end of Romans 9. Not that you are going to like the answer.

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

So basically it's a show of "force" (and potential abuse) for those who think about "getting out of line"? Even my own human parents were more compassionate than that. That's a rather Machiavellian motive.

 

[lesliedellow]

Jesus spent more time *chastising* the Pharisees rather than agreeing with them.

He didn't disagree with them about everything.

So what? Where can you demonstrate that Judaism has ever changed in terms of it's lack of belief in eternal torment? When did you even quote Josephus in this thread?

You want a quote from Josephus?

"They [the Pharisees] also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people;"

So basically it's a show of "force" (and potential abuse) for those who think about "getting out of line"? Even my own human parents were more compassionate than that. That's a rather Machiavellian motive.

So yopu think God needs to consult you about what would be appropriate behaviour for a deity. Well tough, because one of the functions of the Bible is to tell it like it is, even if the God who is revealed does not conform himself to our favourite idol.

 

[Michael]

He didn't disagree with them about everything.

Come on. He essentially *railed* on the Pharisees of his day. You can't just *assume* that Jesus agreed with them on such an important issue, and you can't even demonstrate that "eternal torment" was ever accepted by most Jews to start with. You never showed how or where Judaism changed over the past 2000 years, but I can *easily* show you the theological differences and changes between Origen and Augustine.

You want a quote from Josephus?

"They [the Pharisees] also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people;"

So now all you have to do is demonstrate is that Jesus actually agreed with the Pharisees and show us how or where Judaism (as a whole) has ever embraced such a concept as a whole, even if a few may have.

Neither Judaism or Christianity has ever been 100 percent "in agreement" with every area of religious belief and Jesus certainly had "unkind" things to say about the Pharisees. If I had to guess, I'd guess that Jesus was raised as an Essene.

So yopu think God needs to consult you about what would be appropriate behaviour for a deity. Well tough, because one of the functions of the Bible is to tell it like it is, even if the God who is revealed does not conform himself to our favourite idol.

I'm just noting that what you seem to be proposing is morally bankrupt from the start, and impossible to square with the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[lesliedellow]

Come on. He essentially *railed* on the Pharisees of his day. You can't just *assume* that Jesus agreed with them on such an important issue,

I don't have to assume anything, unless you think that Jesus didn't really mean what he said when he spake of everlasting punishment.

and you can't even demonstrate that "eternal torment" was ever accepted by most Jews to start with. You never showed how or where Judaism changed over the past 2000 years, but I can *easily* show you the theological differences and changes between Origen and Augustine.

And now you are trying to change the subject. Instead of talking about the views of Jesus, you are trying to divert the discussion into the history of Jadaism, or the views of Augustine compared to those of the heterodox Origen.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Jesus was raised as an Essene.

Would you indeed? Then presumably you are unaware that the Essenes were at least as emphatic about eternal punishment as the Pharisees, and that they furthermore believed in double predestination.

I'm just noting that what you seem to be proposing is morally bankrupt from the start, and impossible to square with the Sermon on the Mount.

Then tell that to the God who inspired the Bible.

 

[Michael]

I don't have to assume anything, unless you think that Jesus didn't really mean what he said when he spake of everlasting punishment.

Living with eternal shame isn't the same thing as God going out of his way to create souls with the express intent of tormenting them for the whole of time. What about the Sermon on the Mount, and loving our enemies, and turning the other cheek?

Do you have any concept of "eternity" as it compares to say a 100 years? You'd think even our own system of "justice" would allow someone to get 'get out of jail' sooner or later.

And now you are trying to change the subject. Instead of talking about the views of Jesus, you are trying to divert the discussion into the history of Jadaism, or the views of Augustine compared to those of the heterodox Origen.

From my perspective Origen got it right, and Augustine simply grafted the pagan concept of "hades" onto a perfectly good and loving/forgiving religion.

Would you indeed? Then presumably you are unaware that the Essenes were at least as emphatic about eternal punishment as the Pharisees, and that they furthermore believed in double predestination.

How can one be "doubly" predestined?

You seem to ignore the whole Sermon on the Mount aspect of Christ's teachings IMO. All regions have some concept of 'justice', but even Islam allows for God to eventually 'forgive' someone and let them out of "hell". Even *that* idea is more consistent with Christ's whole body of teachings than suggesting that some of us are "predestined" to be tormented for the whole of eternity by a vengeful and unforgiving father.

Then tell that to the God who inspired the Bible.

Christ embodied the ten commandments. He hung there on the cross, and forgave a man a lifetime of sin based on his simple change of heart, and he prayed for those who were torturing him to death!

That doesn't sound like a man who would go out of his way to torment anyone for the whole of time over the sins that occurred in the relative blink of an eye.

 

[lesliedellow]

You seem to ignore the whole Sermon on the Mount aspect of Christ's teachings IMO. All regions have some concept of 'justice', but even Islam allows for God to eventually 'forgive' someone and let them out of "hell". Even *that* idea is more consistent with Christ's whole body of teachings than suggesting that some of us are "predestined" to be tormented for the whole of eternity by a vengeful and unforgiving father.

Translation: I like Sermon on The Mount, so we'll keep it. But the bits I don't like, such as the repeated references to predestination? Well, we will pretend they are not there.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Translation: I like Sermon on The Mount, so we'll keep it. But the bits I don't like, such as the repeated references to predestination? Well, we will pretend they are not there.

Annihilationism has a certain scriptural support. I used to know more about it than I do now. Here's a link that I only skimmed: http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism/

Here's a eternal-fire supporters defense of annihilationism (this article appears to be motivated to defend supporters of position against those that would call them heretical): Biblical Support for Annihilation

Enjoy

 

[Michael]

Translation: I like Sermon on The Mount, so we'll keep it. But the bits I don't like, such as the repeated references to predestination? Well, we will pretend they are not there.

I don't have a problem with predestination. I just don't believe that God "predestined' anyone to be tormented for the whole of time. Even annihilation would be more "humane".

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't have a problem with predestination. I just don't believe that God "predestined' anyone to be tormented for the whole of time. Even annihilation would be more "humane".

Cambridge Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek:
αιωνιος - long ago; eternal, without end, everlasting

Nestle Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece:
αιωνιος - eternal, unending, everlasting, for all time

 

[Michael]

Cambridge Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek:
αιωνιος - long ago; eternal, without end, everlasting

Nestle Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece:
αιωνιος - eternal, unending, everlasting, for all time

The only justification you've offered to engage in such unforgiving behavior amounts to a Machiavellian argument that could *not be further away* from the "love your enemy", and "turn the other cheek" concept of forgiveness that Jesus spoke about on the Sermon on the Mount.

On the other hand, Origen's description of the 'fire of hell' is completely consistent with the concept of gehenna in Judaism, and his description of universal salvation is completely consistent with the Sermon on the Mount.

Logically, which "interpretation" makes the most sense?

 

[lesliedellow]

The only justification you've offered to engage in such unforgiving behavior amounts to a Machiavellian argument that could *not be further away* from the "love your enemy", and "turn the other cheek" concept of forgiveness that Jesus spoke about on the Sermon on the Mount.

On the other hand, Origen's description of the 'fire of hell' is completely consistent with the concept of gehenna in Judaism, and his description of universal salvation is completely consistent with the Sermon on the Mount.

Logically, which "interpretation" makes the most sense?

So Origen has a higher authority than the Bible for you.