When God knows a soul goes to hell..

[sin_is_fun]

When God knows a soul is going to go to hell ,why does he still create that soul?Why create that soul ,judge it later and send it to eternal hell?Stopping creation of such souls seems to be a better option.Why does God create souls knowing fully well that it will land up in eternal hell?

[McCulloch]

This quote from 2 Peter is not the theory of relativity.

It's not? I think you should probably go back and reread the article too! You should also go back and read why I posted it in the first place. I stated that the bible is backed by science--it's ideas, concepts, systems of beliefs--are continuously supported by scientific knowledge. Did you expect that there would be a verse in the bible delineating the theory of relativity word for word? Did you think that was the only instance in the bible that supports relativity?

I am completely serious. The theory of relativity is supported by the bible--the entire bible. If someone doesn't understand, they can ask and I will explain.

My mistake. I thought that by "supported by" you may have meant that the bible in some way teaches relativity. It appears now as if "supported by" means that the bible, somewhat ambiguously, hints at and is not contrary to relativity.
However, I stand by my assertion that the passage in 2 Peter is not special or general relativity. Those two theories are far more complex than that one simple passage. I will admit, that the passage in 2 Peter may hint at relativity and is not inconsistent with relativity.

Until and unless you already had the theory of relativity, you would not read those theories into that passage.

Really? You, know, you should back that statement up with some proof... because I and others think otherwise.

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.co ... tivity.htm

That's fair. Time is short, so I have to ask that I get back to you on that one later.

[Bugmaster]

McCulloch already said everything I wanted to say. I'd just like to add that the central idea in the theory of relativity is that the speed of light is a constant, regardless of which reference frame you're in. This notion is absolutely the key to relativity, and most modern physics besides.

Where in the Bible does it mention the speed of light as a constant ?

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.co ... tivity.htm

I've read the article... and... "I don't think that word means what you think it means".

Relativity is not the same thing as "time flies when you're having fun"; far from it. Instead, it makes specific statements about time and distance actually changing, in measurable ways, depending on how fast an object is traveling. This applies to any object -- a shoe, a chronometer, Moses, Einstein's chair -- anything. The math which powers the theory will let you calculate the exact amount of time (and space !) dilation that occurs.

Quite tellingly, the article talks about "spiritual energy":

Spiritual energy is immaterial energy, it is not synonymous with mass, it is not subject to the laws of Physics. An inspiration may be spiritual energy.

By definition, this spiritual energy is not scientific. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist (although I would certainly say that it doesn't), but it does mean that it has nothing to do with science. Relativity, on the other hand, is scientific; it deals with physical objects in the real world, not invisible immaterial energies.

I have also noticed that the articles you link to talk quite a bit about Einstein, his religion (or lack thereof), and some anectodal statements that he made. However, all of this is irrelavant as far as relativity is concerned. It doesn't matter if Einstein was a Christian, or a Deist, or a Wiccan, or an atheist; all that matters is his theory, which stands on its own merits. Einstein was an expert in physics, but not an expert in theology. You wouldn't ask the Pope to produce the Unified Field Theory (er... well, at least I wouldn't), and similarly, you wouldn't ask Einstein about the nature of God or the Bible.

I agree that the Bible contains many metaphors, and, based on what we know now, we could apply these metaphors to different aspects of our lives. However, metaphors are not science.

In fact, when the Bible does try to make statements about the nature of the real world, it is quite often mistaken. For example, it speaks of a "firmanent", a crystalline dome that encloses the Earth -- we know now that no such dome exists. We also know that the mustard seed is not the smallest object in the world, and that the Earth is round, and doesn't have corners, etc. etc.

I can only concude that the Bible is what it seems to be -- an ancient document written originally by nomadic tribes -- and thus, cannot be even remotely described as "scientific".

[Bugmaster]

Unicorn, I've also noticed a pattern in all of your posts. It goes something like this:

unicorn: I say X is true !
Someone Else: I don't think your belief in X is justified, because of the following reasons...
unicorn: You haven't read my post enough times ! Keep trying !

This kind of an approach works quite well during prayer, but it doesn't work in debate. Debate is a bit more formal than that; every statement you make is supposed to be backed up by facts and logical reasoning. When an opponent points out a flaw in your reasoning, or casts doubt on some of your facts, it is up to you to amend your argument, or to admit that your beliefs are unfounded.

Of course, no one died and made me moderator -- you can post whatever you want. However, if you expect people to actually be convinced by your posts, you must work hard to convince them. Simply stating, "I'm right and you're wrong :-) " won't work.

[QED]

Did you think that was the only instance in the bible that supports relativity?

I'm glad to hear that Psalm 90 verse 4 is not the only instance because its reference to our perception of time is meaningless without mention to the constancy of light speed irrespective of frame of reference. This is all very much off-topic of course and I thank 'deputy moderator' Bugmaster for his comments on your tactic of telling people to go away and try harder to see it your way. This will come across as arrogance to many participants here and does nothing to bolster your argument. Debate is all about supporting your contentions with ideas which can be challenged. This is not a bulletin board for rhetoric.

[McCulloch]

Until and unless you already had the theory of relativity, you would not read those theories into that passage.

Really? You, know, you should back that statement up with some proof... because I and others think otherwise.

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.co ... tivity.htm

The link hints that certain passages of the bible may have been responsible for inspiring Einstein's views. That is still a far cry from saying that the theory of relativity is taught in the Bible. I forget who it was but one theoretical physicist who found inspiration in the bubbles in a beer glass. I don't think that that proves that beer teaches partical physics, althought undoubtedly it helps . My point is that so far, what you have pointed out as the passages in the Bible which teaches relativity simply do not. No constant speed of light. No Lorenz transformations. No link between speed relative to light and time.

[harvey1]

But what is it Harvey that convinces you that souls exists? Do you think all living things have souls? If not why is the cut-off point where you think it is? I'm sure many people conflate souls with consciousness -- particularly so in the past when the bible was being written. The fact that the bible is treated like a science textbook to some people means they take it as a fact that souls exist. I assume that your thinking is more sophisticated than this, and I hope you can explain it to me... although I also hope it doesn't come out sounding like a pseudo-scientific rationalization of the Christian doctrine on the subject.

We almost entered this discussion once. I was talking about how the bubbles of a boiling pot of water are the happenstance of the molecular action going on by the heating of the water. In the case of consciousness, we know the reasons why we do our actions, right? I mean I'm replying to your post not because some water is boiling inside my head and therefore replies bubble as a result, rather I choose to respond to the issues you raise, and you as well.

I also raised the whole problematic issue of material causation, and, again, here we have no reason to believe that material things actually cause events (I know you disagree, but you never gave me a satisfactory response and nor did anyone else on that topic). It appears to me that non-material happenings cause events. When we dwelve into the area of mind, this especially problematic since it is ideas and thoughts that we have which cause events.

Therefore, when we combine both of these issues, I think we're dealing with something fundamental about how the way the world works. One approach, the purely materialist approach, is to approach these issues with the idea that material causes events, and somehow the bubbles believe they control their occurrence (i.e., thoughts control their development), when they really do not. I think this view is grossly inadequate.

Another approach, is to consider every object as composed of an immaterial function, perhaps described as a wave packet, or perhaps described as a decision tree, etc.. In this way, minds are no longer just material entities that cause events, they are eternal functions that exist "out there." This is what I call souls. Everything has a soul, but a conscious soul is a strong causal agent since it can consider its own existence to make a decision that is not just a bubble of water occurring as it boils to the top.

Since I think God saves structures in Platonia (e.g., pi, the golden ratio, i, e, etc.), I think it is consistent of me to think that God saves these much more sophisticated structures as long as they are consistent in the manner that God seeks them to be. This, I think, requires them to be derived naturally in the world (i.e., born, live their natural lives, and then die), and then to live through a proof (judgement) where they are found to be consistent with God's will. Once proved, they are saved and put in a larger structure where they exemplify their perfection (namely, an Omega state).

[harvey1]

Well, at first glance, your view seems to be internally consistent (even though it's a bit hard to follow), but it's certainly inconsistent with the Biblical God. In the Bible, God cares about human beings and their souls. He personally creates the first humans out of clay, breathes souls into them, makes them worship him, etc. When humans anger him, he deals with them personally, in all kinds of nasty ways. He also has the ability to directly affect people's minds; for example, he "hardens the Pharaoh's heart" in order to bring about additional plagues upon Egypt.

I think that God does care about human souls, and that God does interact with human beings. I just don't think God is a person. I think God is reality structuring itself so that it is consistent with itself. I think that human souls are about that, and I think God has a strong interest in bringing forth life in this world.

Your God is a lot closer to Deism than to Christianity:

No way. Deism is that God created the world and let it function according to the laws that God put out there to control things. I don't think that at all. The Happy Humanist accused me of propping a God that does more than any proposed version of God in history. So, I suppose that makes me on the opposite end of the scale from deism.

he is not literally omnipotent

I don't think that is true. God is fully omnipotent. There is nothing that cannot stop God from accomplishing God's will. Any obstacles that does exist only exists because God choose a decision that as a result implies that God must accept the consequences of that thing. That's not a lack of omnipotency since it could easily be shown that the Christian scriptures never subscribed to that kind of "omnipotence" for God. I would call it something else, perhaps strong omnipotence. It's not in any Christian scripture, that's for sure.

he did not create humans on purpose, and he is hardly even a person -- he's more of a logical axiom.

God put "us" in our bodies, and that is creating us. But, I want to emphasize, we create ourselves by making decisions and becoming the people we want to be. God made that all possible by giving us minds, bodies, etc., but the creation of who we are is left up to us. This is entirely a Christian view.

However, I'd be curious to find out how you arrived at the attributes you ascribe to your God (omni-everything, eternal, etc.), since, presumably, you do not view the Bible as an accurate source of information.

I originally came to religion sort of by accident. I wasn't looking for a religion, but it was introduced to me by a family member who made me aware of religion in my later teen years. At that time I wasn't quite an agnostic, but I wasn't sure if God was necessary. I already had a strong interest in science, so I naturally started to wonder if religion and science were compatible. I found out quickly that religion was not compatible with science, at least on the origins of life, and so I gradually sought out religious responses to these issues. I eventually came upon natural theology, and from that time, in my own view, I have seen how religion and science are largely compatible. I don't feel that I have compromised my Christian heritage, to this day I continually read the scriptures and I have no problem in translating science into natural theology, and natural theology into religious traditions. The major change that has happened to me is that I now see the vast importance of other world religions, so I have started to study them whenever I have time to learn more.

[QED]

Thanks for your reply Harvey, if we can stay close to the topic at hand all the better.

But what is it Harvey that convinces you that souls exists? Do you think all living things have souls? If not why is the cut-off point where you think it is? I'm sure many people conflate souls with consciousness -- particularly so in the past when the bible was being written. The fact that the bible is treated like a science textbook to some people means they take it as a fact that souls exist. I assume that your thinking is more sophisticated than this, and I hope you can explain it to me... although I also hope it doesn't come out sounding like a pseudo-scientific rationalization of the Christian doctrine on the subject.

We almost entered this discussion once. I was talking about how the bubbles of a boiling pot of water are the happenstance of the molecular action going on by the heating of the water. In the case of consciousness, we know the reasons why we do our actions, right? I mean I'm replying to your post not because some water is boiling inside my head and therefore replies bubble as a result, rather I choose to respond to the issues you raise, and you as well.

Well I think you're heading towards "magic water" here. Using your knowledge of evolution you ought to be able to consider some primitive microbe from which is evolved a slightly more sophisticated version moving on all the way up through to a fully-blown animal with a nervous system and brain. The choices for the microbe are akin to the boiling water as it is totally restricted by its simple construction. On the other hand the choices for the animal are infinitely greater thanks to the complexity of its nervous system. The brain has evolved gradually over hundreds of millions of years and I see no reason to have to introduce a magic wand at any point in this development cycle in order to account for consciousness.

It is because of this steady gradient of consciousness that I see no cause to introduce dualism. If we ask ourselves what purpose it would serve in any theory of consciousness the obvious answer (and the one that I think misleads people into believing in it) is it provides the apparent "magic" whereby the fatty organ called the brain transcends its sponginess and becomes a Mozart symphony. But this is plain old incredulity. Why should we have the limited expectations for living tissue that we do? Our come-lately knowledge of assorted computing appliances should tell us that the end product (e.g. talking satellite navigation system) does not give us any hint as to the materials used to implement it (e.g. silicon, gallium arsenide and spacecraft). I firmly believe that people are being misled by the fact that the brain is the most complex thing (by many orders of magnitude) that we ever come across. The magic then, resides in this fantastically unusual conglomeration that has been painstakingly fashioned over some half a billion years.

If we consider the contrast between this most special of organs and every other common bodily organ it is possible to begin to see how far nature can take things. Creatures had pretty much developed all the other tricks of the trade when they first developed back bones and nervous systems. Since then no great advances have been made in legs or jaws etc. All the clever stuff has been going on inside the grey matter. Half a billion years later and I think we can expect some pretty sensational refinements. No wonder it looks like magic. As an analogy, I'd say that human architects and engineers were peaking a few thousand years ago when it comes to works of masonry. But all the attention has now turned to the detailed contents of our buildings and hence we are surrounded by a plethora of micro-engineering wonders. This produces its own brand of magic.

I also raised the whole problematic issue of material causation, and, again, here we have no reason to believe that material things actually cause events (I know you disagree, but you never gave me a satisfactory response and nor did anyone else on that topic). It appears to me that non-material happenings cause events. When we dwelve into the area of mind, this especially problematic since it is ideas and thoughts that we have which cause events.

But look at what you're saying: "we have no reason to believe that material things actually cause events". I can't get much further than staring blankly at that statement and neither can anyone else that has read it here. I think you can only expect common sense from people joining these debates. That this might become a source of frustration for you is regrettable. If you could only demonstrate a real problem that we could identify or an unambiguous instance of a non-material happening causing an event we might make better progress.

Therefore, when we combine both of these issues, I think we're dealing with something fundamental about how the way the world works. One approach, the purely materialist approach, is to approach these issues with the idea that material causes events, and somehow the bubbles believe they control their occurrence (i.e., thoughts control their development), when they really do not. I think this view is grossly inadequate.

I think I have shown that the conclusions of Dualism are unwarranted by asking at which point on the curve of complexity there becomes an obvious requirement for more than the material constituents can deliver. While the view you hold is entirely consistent with those who also hold that all life originated from a single act of creation, it ought to be problematic for you with the knowledge that brains have been developing for a truly unimaginable length of time.

Another approach, is to consider every object as composed of an immaterial function, perhaps described as a wave packet, or perhaps described as a decision tree, etc.. In this way, minds are no longer just material entities that cause events, they are eternal functions that exist "out there." This is what I call souls. Everything has a soul, but a conscious soul is a strong causal agent since it can consider its own existence to make a decision that is not just a bubble of water occurring as it boils to the top.

I simply don't know how to attack this approach as it offers little in the way of test or prediction. That souls operate independently of any material structure is an easy thing to say but demonstrably fails the minute you claim it to be causal in this mode. That is unless you believe in ghost stories and the mutterings of psychic mediums.

Since I think God saves structures in Platonia (e.g., pi, the golden ratio, i, e, etc.), I think it is consistent of me to think that God saves these much more sophisticated structures as long as they are consistent in the manner that God seeks them to be. This, I think, requires them to be derived naturally in the world (i.e., born, live their natural lives, and then die), and then to live through a proof (judgement) where they are found to be consistent with God's will. Once proved, they are saved and put in a larger structure where they exemplify their perfection (namely, an Omega state).

I'm afraid I can't comment on that at all.

[harvey1]

Using your knowledge of evolution you ought to be able to consider some primitive microbe from which is evolved a slightly more sophisticated version moving on all the way up through to a fully-blown animal with a nervous system and brain.

Of course.

The choices for the microbe are akin to the boiling water as it is totally restricted by its simple construction. On the other hand the choices for the animal are infinitely greater thanks to the complexity of its nervous system. The brain has evolved gradually over hundreds of millions of years and I see no reason to have to introduce a magic wand at any point in this development cycle in order to account for consciousness.

Well, conversely, you can go to smaller and smaller scales and see quantum processes at work which can only be explained using wave functions. So, for me in my quantum-cosmological perspective, microbes are also described by wave functions. Turtles all the way down.

It is because of this steady gradient of consciousness that I see no cause to introduce dualism. If we ask ourselves what purpose it would serve in any theory of consciousness the obvious answer (and the one that I think misleads people into believing in it) is it provides the apparent "magic" whereby the fatty organ called the brain transcends its sponginess and becomes a Mozart symphony. But this is plain old incredulity.

No, the mistake is to move from wave function-talk to "wave functions aren't necessary anymore"-talk. I think it is better to stick with wave function-talk at even classical encounters such as microbes and me and you having this discussion.

If we consider the contrast between this most special of organs and every other common bodily organ it is possible to begin to see how far nature can take things. Creatures had pretty much developed all the other tricks of the trade when they first developed back bones and nervous systems. Since then no great advances have been made in legs or jaws etc. All the clever stuff has been going on inside the grey matter. Half a billion years later and I think we can expect some pretty sensational refinements. No wonder it looks like magic. As an analogy, I'd say that human architects and engineers were peaking a few thousand years ago when it comes to works of masonry. But all the attention has now turned to the detailed contents of our buildings and hence we are surrounded by a plethora of micro-engineering wonders. This produces its own brand of magic.

Well, you are addressing a causal history, but you are missing the little detail that the causal history begins with the mathematical underpinning that explains all natural phenomena. The source of your understanding, I think, is non-material. You skip into assuming a material construction, but this is incorrect.

But look at what you're saying: "we have no reason to believe that material things actually cause events". I can't get much further than staring blankly at that statement and neither can anyone else that has read it here. I think you can only expect common sense from people joining these debates. That this might become a source of frustration for you is regrettable. If you could only demonstrate a real problem that we could identify or an unambiguous instance of a non-material happening causing an event we might make better progress.

You cry foul everytime I mention it, but I'll remind you. We have an uncertainty principle that is the cause of virtual particles. In fact, without the uncertainty principle we cannot explain virtual particles. Of course, you don't like the implications of this...

I think I have shown that the conclusions of Dualism are unwarranted by asking at which point on the curve of complexity there becomes an obvious requirement for more than the material constituents can deliver.

At the very beginning when we try to explain causation; the idea breaks down right there and should be abandoned immediately. Atheists should then convert to theism and we should then be debating whether we should be pantheists or panentheists...

I simply don't know how to attack this approach as it offers little in the way of test or prediction. That souls operate independently of any material structure is an easy thing to say but demonstrably fails the minute you claim it to be causal in this mode. That is unless you believe in ghost stories and the mutterings of psychic mediums.

I think we're at the very beginning of science. However, as I said before, a quantum theory of gravity requires a platonic view of the world (thank you for that article by Quentin Smith that made that claim explicit, btw!). So, as we gradually understand more about which quantum gravity theory that is needed, we'll hopefully have more understanding of the kind of platonic metaphysics that best explains the world. In any case, I'm not trying to construct a scientific argument, my argument is basically philosophical reasons to think that soul-talk, or immaterial-talk, is needed.

[Cathar1950]

maybe it is the illusive God particle. I was not convinced of the lack of material causation. It seemed like you were disputing an old view of matter. You seem to be beating an old dog to death. The thing that seems to be the force behind causation is feeling and memory. It seems to me that if you look at the feeling subject (that which is caused instead of the cause which is history) you might get someplace. The cause is memory, past and felt the object is the feeling of the Occasion which is where you need to place causation. What ever caused is interpreted by the object and is the focus.