What is the purpose behind an eternal hell?

[-57]

When the process to get it is also complicated it's rather likely though that intelligence was needed.

Every "code" know to man has required a mind to create it. Whether it is a written sentence, computer code, or a genetic code found in DNA.

 

[Hieronymus]

Every "code" know to man has required a mind to create it. Whether it is a written sentence, computer code, or a genetic code found in DNA.

We agree.

 

[Davian]

You're an atheist...don't worry about a thing. Eat, drink and be merry.

I don't get this. Is it not the religionist that has nothing to worry about, assuming they have the right god?

 

[SeraphimSarov]

When the process to get it is also complicated it's rather likely though that intelligence was needed.

Why do you think this is so?

Intelligence can explain what we find in reality, dead unconscious purposeless laws of nature can not.

Proof needed.

An atheist should believe dead unconscious purposeless forces could have done it, since it is much much simpler than living nature.

I find it much easier to believe that a universe that has existed for nearly fourteen billion years (try for a moment to comprehend how long that is) managed to produce life than that the God of Christianity exists and demands that I worship him.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

What you talked about came from a ...mind....That you can't disagree with.

Okay, but again, I don't think you're going to posit that I am a god because I am a programmer.

It is the belief of many, many people that the intelligent mind was that of diety.

Good for them. Even if something intelligent created the universe -- which I doubt -- that doesn't make it the God of Christianity.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why do you think this is so?

Why would anyone think this is not so??

Proof needed.

Indeed. (?)

I find it much easier to believe that a universe that has existed for nearly fourteen billion years (try for a moment to comprehend how long that is) managed to produce life than that the God of Christianity exists and demands that I worship him.

You have mutated brains.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Why would anyone think this is not so??

No evidence??

You have mutated brains.

Why yes I do, as do you.

 

[Hieronymus]

No evidence??

Are you kidding??
Let's look at what you denied again:

When the process to get it is also complicated it's rather likely though that intelligence was needed.

That's not only about living nature obviously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You're an atheist...don't worry about a thing. Eat, drink and be merry.

Owkay.

I'll take that as a "your point is too hard, so I'll just back out".

 

[Hieronymus]

Owkay.

I'll take that as a "your point is too hard, so I'll just back out".

No dude, it means: You have made your choices, good luck with it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No dude, it means: You have made your choices, good luck with it.

I disagree.
Also "choice" is not applicable here.

I don't "choose" my beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The complexity I clearly demonstrated in post 513 tells us a mind was required to create DNA and its information containing code.

1. how complex something is, is entirely dependent on subjective opinion. There is no objective way to measure "complexity".

2. plenty of things are "complex", that clearly aren't designed. Weather for example. Weather is the result of an extremely complex system containing uncountable variables and factors. I can also make a case that a single snowflake is a very complex formation.

3. saying "complex, thereof designed by a designer" is no more or less then an argument from ignorance / incredulity. Literally.

It becomes readly apparent that the extremely complex and sophisticated DNA code with all of its information was intelligently designed and could not have possibly evolved through a process of gradual unguided random chance and natural selection.

DNA is just a molecule. Get over it.

It is the belief of many, many people that the intelligent mind was that of diety.

At one point, it was the belief of many, many people that the gods lived on Mt Olympus, that Poseidon ruled the tides, that Thor and/or Jupiter controlled lightning, that the earth was flat, that the sun orbitted the earth, etc.

Many people believe(d) all kinds of nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When the process to get it is also complicated it's rather likely though that intelligence was needed.

Why?
Complicated stuff never happens in nature, without some entity controlling the flow of events?

Strange... it seems to me that complicated stuff happens in nature all the time.

Intelligence can explain what we find in reality

Simply asserting "god-dun-it" explains exactly nothing.

, dead unconscious purposeless laws of nature can not

Models describing natural phenomena actually do have actual explanatory power.
For example, evolution not only explains, but even predicts, the structures we should be able to find in specific species - from basic anatomy all the way down to the genetic level.

Some examples:
- you won't find reptiles with body hair
- you won't find mammals with feathers
- you won't find species other then great apes with whom we share more ERV's then with great apes.
- etc

That's explanatory.
Your "god-dun-it" has zero explanatory power.

When we find a chromosome in humans with telomere's in the middle, while the other great apes have an additional chromosome pair, then evolution predicts that if we split the chromosome at the telomere's in the middle, then we should find that "missing" chromosome. And we do. Exactly. It's chromosome 13 of the chimp. We humans aren't missing it. It fused with the second chromosome. A known genetic mutation.

That's explanatory.

In your "explanation", all you can do is shrug your shoulders and say "well, that's how the designer made it". That's not explanatory. That's nonsense, ignoring the elephant in the room.

An atheist should believe dead unconscious purposeless forces could have done it, since it is much much simpler than living nature.

An atheist is only identified by his / her disbelief in theistic claims, nothing else.

I wonder how many times that must be repeated on this forum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would anyone think this is not so??

This suggest that you think that it IS so, simply because you can't imagine another explanation. Is that the case?

Because if it is, then you just commited to a textbook version of the argument from ignorance.

If it is not the case, then please give an actual reason for why you think that "complex = intelligent".

 

[Hawkins]

Indeed, we can't do that. The thing is off course, we don't need to.

Just like we don't need to completely recreate a murder, to solve the murder.

Just like we don't need to completely recreate a volcano eruption, to know that such an event took place somewhere.

Just like we don't need to recreate an asteroid impact, to know it occured in new mexico some 65 million years ago.



Not.



Any biologist will agree that we can't recreate 3.6 billion years worth of evolution in a lab.
All those biologists will also agree that we don't need to and that it is not required, to know that evolution occured.

So you agree that a different approach is used instead of waiting for 3.6 billion years to complete such a lab cycle.

Now the logical question is how reliable is your new approach which is never used in other science?

 

[Hawkins]

No, it makes no sense. The evolutionary process takes eons of time. Unless you lived to be millions and millions of years old, you could not observe it in the lab. However, with bacteria, yes, I can had and been engendered and observed in the lab.

I am not asking for a insisting on doing the lab. I am asking if the lab approach cannot be carried out as it can for other science which don't have such a time constrain, then how reliable is this unique approach not adapted by any other science?

Moreover, it doesn't seem to me that you have a good grasp of what the predictability and falsifiability of science could mean. In this case, a correct and logical perspective may be treated as a "strange definition" as you or someone else did.

 

[Hawkins]

Every "code" know to man has required a mind to create it. Whether it is a written sentence, computer code, or a genetic code found in DNA.

If it's not, you need to demonstrate how it is done, instead of looking into a crappy computer for the so-called evidence.

That's the whole point of discussion by far. It goes boring with the evolutionists though.

 

[Hawkins]

This suggest that you think that it IS so, simply because you can't imagine another explanation. Is that the case?

Because if it is, then you just commited to a textbook version of the argument from ignorance.

If it is not the case, then please give an actual reason for why you think that "complex = intelligent".

it's a rather common sense, we shouldn't rule out other possibility though. Scientifically speaking that's when you can demonstrate how it can be done so.

Moreover, you don't demonstrate how a character can be accidentally introduced into a code trunk of a program to conclude that the program can be formed by itself. You need to predictably tell under what circumstance that the introduced characters can form a fully functional program. Or else, it all remains the advocate of a possibility.

That's why the change from bacteria to bacteria says nothing about how a bacteria changes to a, say, mammal. Because the change of bacteria to bacteria shows nothing about how, say, a heart is formed.

Thus from the observations of change of bacteria to bacteria to draw the conclusion that a mammal with complicated organs can be formed by itself makes not much difference to speculating the accidental introduction of a character to a program then to draw the conclusion that the program is formed by itself.

 

[Hawkins]

Simply asserting "god-dun-it" explains exactly nothing.

It's about a possibility cannot be ruled out. You can't draw the conclusion that "whatever considered as god-did-it cannot be true", can you?

Models describing natural phenomena actually do have actual explanatory power.

Explanation power says nothing about what truth is. Humans never lack explanations to almost everything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you agree that a different approach is used instead of waiting for 3.6 billion years to complete such a lab cycle.

A "different" approach??
As if waiting for 3.6 billion years ever was a valid approach.......

Now the logical question is how reliable is your new approach which is never used in other science?

Extremely reliable. And it is used in every other science.

Your ignorance on how science works, knows no bounds it seems.

ps: can you recreate your birth? No? Owkay. Therefor, you were never born.