My Aitch Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Is there a scientific reason not to believe in Heaven or Hell?

If so, what is it?

 

[durangodawood]

I would say the closest we can get to a scientific reason comes from anthropology: that heaven and hell are the kind of mythical motivation mechanisms that humans are likely to invent.

Its hardly conclusive, but something to factor-in to ones thoughts on the matter.

 

[quatona]

Is there a scientific reason not to believe in Heaven or Hell?

There is no scientific reason to believe there are heaven or hell, and this - by scientific standards - is sufficient reason not to believe there are.

 

[Deidre32]

All science means in this case is that it's not possible to use a scientific method to prove that heaven or hell exists. It can't be tested on earth, it can't be set in a controlled environment like most scientific methods. Heaven and hell is not about science, it's about faith.

 

[farout]

Is there a scientific reason not to believe in Heaven or Hell?

If so, what is it?

Those who want to believe there is no hell or heaven, will have to experience death to know for sure one way or the other. Scientific evidence is a man named way of things scientifically.

God is spirit and those who worship Him have to worship Him in spirit. What is unseen will be seen. This is Gods promise, we accept it or we don't. After death comes the judgment. Hebrews 9:27

 

[lesliedellow]

If there was a scientific reason not to believe in heaven or hell, no scientist would believe in either of them, and clearly a significant number of scientists do believe in them.

So what is the significance of that meant to be?

 

[AV1611VET]

If there was a scientific reason not to believe in heaven or hell, no scientist would believe in either of them,

I'm going to disagree here.

... and clearly a significant number of scientists do believe in them.

Good for them.

This thread is asking for a scientific reason not to believe.

 

[VirOptimus]

Is there a scientific reason not to believe in Heaven or Hell?

If so, what is it?

Science does not deal with metaphysics.

Learn the basics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science does not deal with metaphysics.

That's because science is myopic.

And it's a good thing, too: if science could get their pitchforks in the metaphysical world, think how they'd mess everything up.

 

[durangodawood]

That's because science is myopic....

Do you think the methods of science could be applied to an investigation of heaven or hell?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think the methods of science could be applied to an investigation of heaven or hell?

I do.

 

[durangodawood]

I do.

How might that work?

What are some scientific ways that one might examine heaven or hell?

 

[AV1611VET]

How might that work?

What are some scientific ways that one might examine heaven or hell?

Well, first of all, I don't think you're going to find anything.

Science is: 1) myopic, 2) under the aegis of the Devil, and 3) is currently staffed by non-believers.

That said, one can at least submit Heaven and Hell to the initial stages of the scientific method for rejection.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, first of all, I don't think you're going to find anything.

Science is: 1) myopic, 2) under the aegis of the Devil, and 3) is currently staffed by non-believers.

That said, one can at least submit Heaven and Hell to the initial stages of the scientific method for rejection.

Yes, I know you think that.

Im just following up on your interesting opinion that heaven and hell could be investigated scientifically.

Rather than simply disagreeing with you, I'd like know what might change my mind. So, how might this scientific investigation proceed?

 

[lesliedellow]

That's because science is myopic.

No, it's because science does not deal in metaphysics. Just like historians don't deal with brain surgery.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That said, one can at least submit Heaven and Hell to the initial stages of the scientific method for rejection.

You'd need to start with a clear definition of precisely what is meant by Heaven and Hell before you can proceed - e.g. if Heaven was a double scoop of chocolate chip ice-cream, and Hell was a long hike in bare feet, it wouldn't be difficult.

So how would you define Heaven and Hell in a way amenable to the initial stages of the scientific method?

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd need to start with a clear definition of precisely what is meant by Heaven and Hell before you can proceed - e.g. if Heaven was a double scoop of chocolate chip ice-cream, and Hell was a long hike in bare feet, it wouldn't be difficult.

So how would you define Heaven and Hell in a way amenable to the initial stages of the scientific method?

Cute.

 

[RickG]

Well, first of all, I don't think you're going to find anything.

Which is why science says nothing either way about it.

Science is: 1) myopic,

The only thing myopic is your opinion.

2) under the aegis of the Devil, and 3) is currently staffed by non-believers.

Fundamentalism and creation science is pushing me toward non belief, which is due to their myopic views.

That said, one can at least submit Heaven and Hell to the initial stages of the scientific method for rejection.

Show us the way. How can the scientific method investigate Heaven and Hell?

 

[durangodawood]

...Show us the way. How can the scientific method investigate Heaven and Hell?

Yes. This sounds really interesting, and potentially a way in to faith for the currently non-believing.... if correct.

 

[bhsmte]

If there was a scientific reason not to believe in heaven or hell, no scientist would believe in either of them, and clearly a significant number of scientists do believe in them.

So what is the significance of that meant to be?

Easy. Some folks don't use science to determine what they do or don't believe in. There are other factors involved with what people eventually believe in and is based on their personal psyche.