Why would a God even need a hell?

[Mudda]

Worship you=kiss your ass.

Worshiping God means to treat everything you do like it was a sacred act. I doubt you have any concept of what this means.

Exactly, you're kissing his ass for everything you do because he's you're invisible hero.

Thank you for proving me correct.

For fawning over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

No. For proving that you have no concept of what worship means.

So what's it like to fawn over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

 

[ding]

Worshiping God means to treat everything you do like it was a sacred act. I doubt you have any concept of what this means.

Exactly, you're kissing his ass for everything you do because he's you're invisible hero.

Thank you for proving me correct.

For fawning over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

No. For proving that you have no concept of what worship means.

So what's it like to fawn over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

But you can't disprove Him no matter how hard you try, right? Think of how you fawn over yourself.

 

[Mudda]

Exactly, you're kissing his ass for everything you do because he's you're invisible hero.

Thank you for proving me correct.

For fawning over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

No. For proving that you have no concept of what worship means.

So what's it like to fawn over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

But you can't disprove Him no matter how hard you try, right? Think of how you fawn over yourself.

Science and real life don't work on not being able to disprove something. It's the last grasp at the straw by wishful thinkers.

 

[ding]

Thank you for proving me correct.

For fawning over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

No. For proving that you have no concept of what worship means.

So what's it like to fawn over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

But you can't disprove Him no matter how hard you try, right? Think of how you fawn over yourself.

Science and real life don't work on not being able to disprove something. It's the last grasp at the straw by wishful thinkers.

Actually science does work that way. If Eddington’s experiment had NOT confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount Einstein had predicted in his theory of gravity, then Einstein's Theory of General Relativity would have been proven wrong.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or that everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

 

[Mudda]

For fawning over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

No. For proving that you have no concept of what worship means.

So what's it like to fawn over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

But you can't disprove Him no matter how hard you try, right? Think of how you fawn over yourself.

Science and real life don't work on not being able to disprove something. It's the last grasp at the straw by wishful thinkers.

Actually science does work that way. If Eddington’s experiment had NOT confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount Einstein had predicted in his theory of gravity, then Einstein's Theory of General Relativity would have been proven wrong.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or that everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

You have no scientific theory about your god to disprove. Come up with one and we'll see.

 

[ding]

No. For proving that you have no concept of what worship means.

So what's it like to fawn over someone you can't prove no matter how hard you try?

But you can't disprove Him no matter how hard you try, right? Think of how you fawn over yourself.

Science and real life don't work on not being able to disprove something. It's the last grasp at the straw by wishful thinkers.

Actually science does work that way. If Eddington’s experiment had NOT confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount Einstein had predicted in his theory of gravity, then Einstein's Theory of General Relativity would have been proven wrong.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or that everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

You have no scientific theory about your god to disprove. Come up with one and we'll see.

Do you expect the supernatural to be scientifically examined?

 

[Mudda]

Do you expect the supernatural to be scientifically examined?

It has been, they found only scammers.

 

[ding]

Do you expect the supernatural to be scientifically examined?

It has been, they found only scammers.

Thank you for proving my point. There can be no direct examination of the supernatural. The only question would be why you keep asking for it.

 

[Mudda]

Do you expect the supernatural to be scientifically examined?

It has been, they found only scammers.

Thank you for proving my point. There can be no direct examination of the supernatural. The only question would be why you keep asking for it.

So you admit that there's no possible scientific proof for your invisible friend. Good for you. My job is done here.

 

[ding]

Do you expect the supernatural to be scientifically examined?

It has been, they found only scammers.

Thank you for proving my point. There can be no direct examination of the supernatural. The only question would be why you keep asking for it.

So you admit that there's no possible scientific proof for your invisible friend. Good for you. My job is done here.

No. that's not what I wrote. Your logic is flawed. I wouldn't expect a Brit Boy to be able to follow it.

 

[Mudda]

Hell is god's furnace that keeps heaven warm. And everyone knows that the furnace is in the basement.

 

[ding]

Hell is god's furnace that keeps heaven warm. And everyone knows that the furnace is in the basement.

You don't believe in hell.

 

[Mudda]

Hell is god's furnace that keeps heaven warm. And everyone knows that the furnace is in the basement.

You don't believe in hell.

And that cooks your biscuits.

 

[ding]

Hell is god's furnace that keeps heaven warm. And everyone knows that the furnace is in the basement.

You don't believe in hell.

And that cooks your biscuits.

No. it proves you don't believe your argument.

 

[Mudda]

Hell is god's furnace that keeps heaven warm. And everyone knows that the furnace is in the basement.

You don't believe in hell.

And that cooks your biscuits.

No. it proves you don't believe your argument.

Just playing along to what the bible says, didn't you get that?

 

[ding]

Hell is god's furnace that keeps heaven warm. And everyone knows that the furnace is in the basement.

You don't believe in hell.

And that cooks your biscuits.

No. it proves you don't believe your argument.

Just playing along to what the bible says, didn't you get that?

No. What I get is that you, an avowed agnostic who professes to not know either way, is arguing that you do know.

 

[Mudda]

Hell is god's furnace that keeps heaven warm. And everyone knows that the furnace is in the basement.

You don't believe in hell.

And that cooks your biscuits.

No. it proves you don't believe your argument.

Just playing along to what the bible says, didn't you get that?

No. What I get is that you, an avowed agnostic who professes to not know either way, is arguing that you do know.

Well of course you misinterpret what I say, that's only par for the course.

 

[ding]

You don't believe in hell.

And that cooks your biscuits.

No. it proves you don't believe your argument.

Just playing along to what the bible says, didn't you get that?

No. What I get is that you, an avowed agnostic who professes to not know either way, is arguing that you do know.

Well of course you misinterpret what I say, that's only par for the course.

No, I'm not misinterpreting what you said. I am explaining to you that you are arguing that you do know when your belief is that you don't know.

 

[Mudda]

No, I'm not misinterpreting what you said. I am explaining to you that you are arguing that you do know when your belief is that you don't know.

You can explain that last sentence to me.

 

[ding]

No, I'm not misinterpreting what you said. I am explaining to you that you are arguing that you do know when your belief is that you don't know.

You can explain that last sentence to me.

Sure. You are an agnostic. By definition, you don't know. So when I explain the evidence for God to you, your rejection of it is an admission that you do know.