What is the purpose behind an eternal hell?

[Archaeopteryx]

You need to understand why the scientists have to do so.

Because they see the ridiculousness of your conception of science, which seems to come directly from Ken Ham et al?

 

[Hawkins]

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

There is of course a purpose. I actually explained else where.

 

[Hawkins]

Because they see the ridiculousness of your conception of science, which seems to come directly from Ken Ham et al?

What I have presented is just simple logic. So just leave it there if you don't have the capability to comprehend.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

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

Umm...it's actually the foundation of biology. Doing biology without evolution is like trying to do physics without math. You're demonstrably wrong. Any practicing biologist will tell you this.

Biology has all the predictability a science requires as you can repeatedly predict what would be the next at the cellular studies.

Genetics is a field of biology and used the theory of evolution to predict that when we looked at the human genome, we'd find a fused chromosome with vestigial telomeres and centromeres on it that would match the extra chromosome chimps have. That is exactly what they found.

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.

We've seen single cells turn into human beings repeatedly throughout our lives. It's called every single successful pregnancy ever. I don't think this is what you're arguing though. Are you saying you want to see the entire process of evolution take place before your eyes? Well you don't live 3 billion years, so you'll have to piece the evidence together. Evolution predicts species will fall into a nested hierarchy. This is confirmed in the fossil record and then repeated in genetics.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What I have presented is just simple logic. So just leave it there if you don't have the capability to comprehend.

You don't seem to understand how science works.

 

[Hieronymus]

There is of course a purpose. I actually explained else where.

Than it must not have been reasonable to me, i don't recall reading any feasible purpose, sorry.

 

[Hieronymus]

Umm...it's actually the foundation of biology.

No,biology was there before the thesis of evolution.

EDIT:
Hmm... maybe not, but it is just a naturalist conjecture, whereas biology is the science of living nature.

 

[Hieronymus]

Because they see the ridiculousness of your conception of science, which seems to come directly from Ken Ham et al?

No,your memory fails.
It's naturalism, remember?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Why is the forgiveness of an all-mighty, all-knowing, omni-present, all-powerfull deity dependend on a blood sacrifice?

That just makes no sense to me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is this scientifically verifiable

Yes. These days, we can actually pretty much artificially trigger the phenomena.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

You seem confused.

Again, as he said, the formula is just the mathematical expression of the theoretical model. The formula wasn't discovered under a rock.

 

[DogmaHunter]

On the other hand, my point is classical science is closely related to the predictability which ToE lacks.

That's kind of funny, considering how ridiculously many testable predictions ToE actually makes. This is actually one of the key components that contribute to its status as being among the most solid theories in all of science. Its predictions aren't even limited to only biology. It crosses over with impact on other fields.

For example, due to its gradual and slow nature, it predicts an old planet.

Some examples of predictions made by evolution:
- no mammal, other then primates, will be found that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.
- no rabbit fossils will ever be found in pre-cambrian geological layers.
- no trilobite fossils will ever be found alongside dino fossils.
- you will not find mammals with feathers.
- ...

and many, many more.
In short; evolution predicts a nested hierarchy in life. From this model, you can make an inumerable amount of predictions.

That first example about ERV's... that goes for all species.
Dogs and wolves will share more ERV's then dogs and cats or wolves and birds.
Humans and tigers will share more ERV's then humans and crockodiles.
etc.
We can literally come up with predictions like that for page after page after page.

Consider that each and every one of these predictions harbours a potential falsification of the entire model.

So, an inumerable amount of predict = an inumerable amount of potential falsifications.

So if it is indeed wrong... it should be pretty easy to show it to be wrong.
Can you?

It is because ToE doesn't adapt the traditional way of how science works.

That's just demonstrably false.
Darwinian evolution. Neo-darwinian evolution. The modern synthesis.
As new data came in, the model as adjusted accordingly. Like any progressing idea in science, it became more detailed, more accurate and tossed out mistakes or inaccuracies over time.

The ToE today is not what it used to be in Darwin's time, eventhough the core of it remains the same. Which is why Darwin is remembered in name. His foundation proved rock-solid and bang on the money: natural selection and descend with modification. But he didn't know about DNA, so it's not surprising that he got a few things about the mechanics wrong. Conceptually though, he was spot on.

There's reason why traditional science works reliably while the same degree of reliability simply doesn't exist in the case of ToE.

That's again another falsehoord.
ToE is among the most reliable and most supported theories in all of science.

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.

No theory in science is ever considered "confirmed". Intellectual honesty and all that...

This is so because both are a study of the past

No. It's because science is an intellectually honest undertaking where there is no room for dishonest "certainty" and dogma.

while traditional science is not just about empirical observations, it's more about how a developed theory can reliably apply to future occurrence repeatedly.

You mean like how there's much buzz in medical communities today about prescribing anti-biotics, as we are at risk of bacteria evolving so much resistance to it, that we might face "super bacteria" a few decades from now, which might cause us to die from deseases that are considered rather trivial today?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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 not a prediction, nore is it a theory.

That is rather a description of the behaviour of certain chemicals.
It's a fact. A fact that is explained by the physical models (theories), which in turn give us understanding in why chemicals behave the way that they do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

And...out come the conspiracy theories.

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.

We don't need to.
Just like we don't need to repeat a murder to find out how and when a victim got slaughtered.

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.

newsflash: the present contains evidence of past events

Someone walked here.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is not just any blood sacrifice, but one without blemish.
This type led to the final sacrifice for people - His Son.
If you die in your sins - your sins can't ever be forgiven.

It is of no consequence what words you use to describe this.

My point stands and remains unaddressed.

Where is the sense in only being able to "forgive" through a blood sacrifice (of a scapegoat, of all things), when the being doing the forgiving is supposed to be all-powerful?

It makes no sense. It's not even immoral. It's a step beyond that. It's morally bankrupt. Absurd.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[DogmaHunter]

The blood sacrifices began actually where in the Bible? Adam and Eve were made clothes. Abel and Cain both brought things to the LORD. One was accepted, the other wasn't. Noah after the flood sacrificed, and on into the time of Israel after Egypt would now give of their firstborn animals, /the Levites/since God had spared them from dying with the firstborn in the final plague brought upon the Egyptians-where blood over the door protected them from the destroyer that night. The sacrifices seem to mostly after that be linked up with Israel and her obedience /as to the high priest...until the days of Jesus Christ as our High Priest. We are told that the life is in the blood. Other high priests had to enter into the most holy place once a year, but Christ just once as the final payment...His blood for our sins.

Many words, just to end up where it started...

Apparantly, an all-knowing, all-powerfull entity is only capable of "forgiving" when it involves a blood sacrifice.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[DogmaHunter]

It was a way of showing love and obedience back to God.

By sacrificing himself, to himself, to "save" us from himself.

Absurd to the highest degree.

Some people say that they don't need any holy Being as Creator to set the standards of right and wrong.

I'm one of them.
Having said that, this being as depicted in the bible, clearly isn't able to set such standards....

Oh, then what if my neighbor thinks something is okay, but I don't?

Yes, because christians agree on everything.......

The first rules were very simple - tend the garden, be fruitful, multiply - don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Nothing as to slay beasts for their blood. Weeds also came - thorns due to sin - labor time would not be so easy, nor having
a child. Sacrificing an animal is not the only act due to sin by man. Land would be lost, possessions and captivity at times happened due to sin, even though animals were still being
sacrificed...but not the unblemished ones. God has required lots
of things due to sin by people. He didn't just say- give me some
blood and all is forgiven...go on with your evil lives. Sins have
a price be it nations, cities, or a man. Pretty soon the land will
spew the people out of it. The blood of the righteous slain will
later be paid by the wicked that owe for it. Just like Cain killing
Abel and was sent away with a mark on him as to if any killed
him. Same for those in Rev. 18 that don't flee from Babylon before her plagues begin against her - God has remembered
her sins. Just like when someone dies unsaved -in their sins.
Punishment follows upon nations when God remembers their sins.

Again... many words. And not a single that actually addresses the post you are responding to.