What is the purpose behind an eternal hell?

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Davian]

The net has stories of people

The 'net also has stories of people abducted by extraterrestrial aliens. Are you concerned about that happening to you?

that died in a hospital/s and knew
what relatives were doing elsewhere- such as in a waiting room.
Some have also described seeing medical procedures and equipment used after they had flat-lined and doctors were trying
to revive them.

The 'net also has links to large studies where scientists were unable to find any credence to those stories that you allude to.

http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(14)00739-4/abstract?cc=y=

Here is a review of the paper done by Dr. Novella, an academic neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-results-finally-published-no-evidence-of-nde/

The study did not support the speculation that people actually "fly" above themselves, or observe objects that could not be seen from the perspective of their body.

All you need is one scientifically verifiable story to refute all of that. Do you have one? No?

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Davian]

All you need is one scientifically verifiable story to refute all of that. Do you have one? No?

First of all, the study was not something I would give much credit
to. They didn't even say how long those people were considered
in cardiac arrest.

I will take that as a "no".

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Hawkins]

So the only way to forgive sins is to have someone brutally tortured and killed? That is not moral.

Why can't you just admit you could possibly comprehend the situation in a wrong way!

It's God's self sacrifice which has the power to save sinned humans.

 

[Hawkins]

An interesting phenomenon that happens when brains are temporarily deprived of oxygen.

Why do you ask?

Is this scientifically verifiable on a case per case basis for you to draw this conclusion? OR is it just your faith or fabrication?

In how many NDE cases that the "lack of oxygen in brain" were quantitatively measured by scientific equipment?

 

[Hawkins]

This is inaccurate. Where relevant and useful, mathematical formulae tend to describe theories, not support them. As an example, the formula E=MC^2 describes the relationship between matter and energy in special relativity. It doesn't support the theory; it expresses it mathematically.

It is a result which you can repeatedly and logically deduce. It is true because of it's predictability. That is, disregarding what method you are going to use. E=MC^2 will stand true (under a pre-defined paradigm), you can predict this before you apply your method of calculation.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why can't you just admit you could possibly comprehend the situation in a wrong way!

The situation is pretty straight forward. If you think i'm wrong, please demonstrate it.

 

[bhsmte]

Is this scientifically verifiable on a case per case basis for you to draw this conclusion? OR is it just your faith or fabrication?

In how many NDE cases that the "lack of oxygen in brain" were quantitatively measured by scientific equipment?

NDE cases are related to events when the cardiovascular system is compromized, which reduces or cuts off blood flow (oxygen) to the brain and other vital organs.

When the brain is oxygen deprived, it can incur abnormal activity and many medical proffessionals believe this is likely to cause the nde experience.

 

[Davian]

Is this scientifically verifiable on a case per case basis for you to draw this conclusion? OR is it just your faith or fabrication?

It is a conclusion drawn form the evidence at hand. For those claiming that NDE's are somehow more than that, the burden lies with them to demonstrate that.

In how many NDE cases that the "lack of oxygen in brain" were quantitatively measured by scientific equipment?

I don't know. How many?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is a result which you can repeatedly and logically deduce. It is true because of it's predictability. That is, disregarding what method you are going to use. E=MC^2 will stand true (under a pre-defined paradigm), you can predict this before you apply your method of calculation.

My point was only that the theory is supported by observations matching the empirical expectations that follow from the theory. The theory would be supported even if it were rendered in prose, rather than being expressed mathematically. The mathematical expression is simply more versatile and less cumbersome.

 

[Hawkins]

My point was only that the theory is supported by observations matching the empirical expectations that follow from the theory. The theory would be supported even if it were rendered in prose, rather than being expressed mathematically. The mathematical expression is simply more versatile and less cumbersome.

On the other hand, my point is classical science is closely related to the predictability which ToE lacks. It is because ToE doesn't adapt the traditional way of how science works. There's reason why traditional science works reliably while the same degree of reliability simply doesn't exist in the case of ToE.

The same (i.e., the lack of the characteristic of predictability) exists in the case of Big Bang Theory. The result is that you can claim the same that "the theory is supported by observations matching the empirical expectations", still it won't make it a confirmed theory.

This is so because both are a study of the past, while traditional science is not just about empirical observations, it's more about how a developed theory can reliably apply to future occurrence repeatedly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On the other hand, my point is classical science is closely related to the predictability which ToE lacks. It is because ToE doesn't adapt the traditional way of how science works. There's reason why traditional science works reliably while the same degree of reliability simply doesn't exist in the case of ToE.

The same (i.e., the lack of the characteristic of predictability) exists in the case of Big Bang Theory. The result is that you can claim the same that "the theory is supported by observations matching the empirical expectations", still it won't make it a confirmed theory.

This is so because both are a study of the past, while traditional science is not just about empirical observations, it's more about how a developed theory can reliably apply to future occurrence repeatedly.

Both the Big Bang theory and the evolution have made predictions that have been satisfied, thus yielding empirical support to the theory.

 

[Hawkins]

Both the Big Bang theory and the evolution have made predictions that have been satisfied, thus yielding empirical support to the theory.

No, predictability of science is not just about predictions (say, of lottery you are to buy), it's strictly about how you apply your theory in predicting the next occurrence. The Bang Theory is true when and only when it can accurately predict what would happen in the next Big Bang.

It's just like how the chemical formula 2H2O = 2H2 + O2, its predictability only refers to how it predicts the next chemical reaction of water resolves into hydrogen and oxygen, no less and no more.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It is because ToE doesn't adapt the traditional way of how science works. There's reason why traditional science works reliably while the same degree of reliability simply doesn't exist in the case of ToE.

Tell that to a biomedical researcher and you'd get laughed out of their lab.

 

[Hawkins]

Tell that to a biomedical researcher and you'd get laughed out of their lab.

ToE is not biology, it's a history study! Period.

Biology has all the predictability a science requires as you can repeatedly predict what would be the next at the cellular studies. This is however not the case of ToE as no one can repeatedly make a single cell to evolve into, say, a mammal repeatedly and predictably.

It is actually a deception to try to equate biology to ToE, just as deceptive as the claim that the Big Bang Theory can predict.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, predictability of science is not just about predictions (say, of lottery you are to buy), it's strictly about how you apply your theory in predicting the next occurrence. The Bang Theory is true when and only when it can accurately predict what would happen in the next Big Bang.

It's just like how the chemical formula 2H2O = 2H2 + O2, its predictability only refers to how it predicts the next chemical reaction of water resolves into hydrogen and oxygen, no less and no more.

That's now how it works. JonFromMinnesota is right; any working scientist would consider this laughable.

 

[Hawkins]

That's now how it works. JonFromMinnesota is right; any working scientist would consider this laughable.

You need to understand why the scientists have to do so. They have a reason to give up the traditional way of scientific research.

Human science is not without limit. Say, we can't go beyond our 3D environment to do, say, experiments in a 4th dimension. The limit of ToE is that we can't use a lab to make a single cell evolve into, say, a mammal to complete our sequence of scientific research.

The scientists have to work under this limit. Thus the alternative (but not scientific) way to try to approach the truth is by studying what could possibly happen in the past.

 

[Hieronymus]

So, nobody came up with a purpose for eternal endless torture, or a 2nd death that is no death.
Good.