Why would a God even need a hell?

[ding]

Christians need a hell ,God does not need a hell , and he does not need Christians.

You don't speak for Christians. You hate Christians.

 

[Mudda]

Why would God " Need" a hell?

I don't know what you think hell is but hell is being eternally separated from God.

How do you know you can be separated from god? Got any proof?

What difference would it make to you?

Like my sig says "am willing to change my mind given real proof". Got any?

No, you're not.

I think you meant to say "no, I don't".

 

[ding]

I don't know what you think hell is but hell is being eternally separated from God.

How do you know you can be separated from god? Got any proof?

What difference would it make to you?

Like my sig says "am willing to change my mind given real proof". Got any?

No, you're not.

I think you meant to say "no, I don't".

No, I said what I meant. No, you're not willing to change your mind given real proof. I have already proven that. You have all the proof you need. What proof do you want?

 

[Mudda]

How do you know you can be separated from god? Got any proof?

What difference would it make to you?

Like my sig says "am willing to change my mind given real proof". Got any?

No, you're not.

I think you meant to say "no, I don't".

No, I said what I meant. No, you're not willing to change your mind given real proof. I have already proven that. You have all the proof you need. What proof do you want?

Something that withstands scientific scrutiny. Go ahead, I'm still waiting.

 

[ding]

What difference would it make to you?

Like my sig says "am willing to change my mind given real proof". Got any?

No, you're not.

I think you meant to say "no, I don't".

No, I said what I meant. No, you're not willing to change your mind given real proof. I have already proven that. You have all the proof you need. What proof do you want?

Something that withstands scientific scrutiny. Go ahead, I'm still waiting.

Give me a specific example. Like what? DNA?

 

[Mudda]

Like my sig says "am willing to change my mind given real proof". Got any?

No, you're not.

I think you meant to say "no, I don't".

No, I said what I meant. No, you're not willing to change your mind given real proof. I have already proven that. You have all the proof you need. What proof do you want?

Something that withstands scientific scrutiny. Go ahead, I'm still waiting.

Give me a specific example. Like what? DNA?

Anything that will withstand scientific scrutiny. DNA on its own withstands scientific scrutiny, but it'll depend on how you're trying to associate it with something else that likely won't.

 

[ding]

No, you're not.

I think you meant to say "no, I don't".

No, I said what I meant. No, you're not willing to change your mind given real proof. I have already proven that. You have all the proof you need. What proof do you want?

Something that withstands scientific scrutiny. Go ahead, I'm still waiting.

Give me a specific example. Like what? DNA?

Anything that will withstand scientific scrutiny. DNA on its own withstands scientific scrutiny, but it'll depend on how you're trying to associate it with something else that likely won't.

Can you give me an example? Because the universe withstands scientific scrutiny and is evidence of God.

 

[Mudda]

I think you meant to say "no, I don't".

No, I said what I meant. No, you're not willing to change your mind given real proof. I have already proven that. You have all the proof you need. What proof do you want?

Something that withstands scientific scrutiny. Go ahead, I'm still waiting.

Give me a specific example. Like what? DNA?

Anything that will withstand scientific scrutiny. DNA on its own withstands scientific scrutiny, but it'll depend on how you're trying to associate it with something else that likely won't.

Can you give me an example? Because the universe withstands scientific scrutiny and is evidence of God.

That the universe is evidence of god does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

 

[ding]

No, I said what I meant. No, you're not willing to change your mind given real proof. I have already proven that. You have all the proof you need. What proof do you want?

Something that withstands scientific scrutiny. Go ahead, I'm still waiting.

Give me a specific example. Like what? DNA?

Anything that will withstand scientific scrutiny. DNA on its own withstands scientific scrutiny, but it'll depend on how you're trying to associate it with something else that likely won't.

Can you give me an example? Because the universe withstands scientific scrutiny and is evidence of God.

That the universe is evidence of god does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

Sure it does, and reason and experience too. We've been through this before.

 

[Mudda]

Something that withstands scientific scrutiny. Go ahead, I'm still waiting.

Give me a specific example. Like what? DNA?

Anything that will withstand scientific scrutiny. DNA on its own withstands scientific scrutiny, but it'll depend on how you're trying to associate it with something else that likely won't.

Can you give me an example? Because the universe withstands scientific scrutiny and is evidence of God.

That the universe is evidence of god does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

Sure it does, and reason and experience too. We've been through this before.

So what;s the scientific angle that ties the preferred invisible being to the universe? Now remember, your answer should pass scientific scrutiny, not "we've been through this before", that didn't pass.

 

[ding]

Give me a specific example. Like what? DNA?

Anything that will withstand scientific scrutiny. DNA on its own withstands scientific scrutiny, but it'll depend on how you're trying to associate it with something else that likely won't.

Can you give me an example? Because the universe withstands scientific scrutiny and is evidence of God.

That the universe is evidence of god does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

Sure it does, and reason and experience too. We've been through this before.

So what;s the scientific angle that ties the preferred invisible being to the universe? Now remember, your answer should pass scientific scrutiny, not "we've been through this before", that didn't pass.

The laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[Mickiel]

Hell is a crutch that Christianity needs to help hold it's doctrinal base up.

 

[Mudda]

Anything that will withstand scientific scrutiny. DNA on its own withstands scientific scrutiny, but it'll depend on how you're trying to associate it with something else that likely won't.

Can you give me an example? Because the universe withstands scientific scrutiny and is evidence of God.

That the universe is evidence of god does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

Sure it does, and reason and experience too. We've been through this before.

So what;s the scientific angle that ties the preferred invisible being to the universe? Now remember, your answer should pass scientific scrutiny, not "we've been through this before", that didn't pass.

The laws of nature existed before space and time.

No such thing has been scientifically proven. Nor does this statement tie in scientifically with the certainty of god existing.

 

[ding]

Can you give me an example? Because the universe withstands scientific scrutiny and is evidence of God.

That the universe is evidence of god does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

Sure it does, and reason and experience too. We've been through this before.

So what;s the scientific angle that ties the preferred invisible being to the universe? Now remember, your answer should pass scientific scrutiny, not "we've been through this before", that didn't pass.

The laws of nature existed before space and time.

No such thing has been scientifically proven. Nor does this statement tie in scientifically with the certainty of god existing.

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

 

[Mudda]

That the universe is evidence of god does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

Sure it does, and reason and experience too. We've been through this before.

So what;s the scientific angle that ties the preferred invisible being to the universe? Now remember, your answer should pass scientific scrutiny, not "we've been through this before", that didn't pass.

The laws of nature existed before space and time.

No such thing has been scientifically proven. Nor does this statement tie in scientifically with the certainty of god existing.

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

 

[ding]

Sure it does, and reason and experience too. We've been through this before.

So what;s the scientific angle that ties the preferred invisible being to the universe? Now remember, your answer should pass scientific scrutiny, not "we've been through this before", that didn't pass.

The laws of nature existed before space and time.

No such thing has been scientifically proven. Nor does this statement tie in scientifically with the certainty of god existing.

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

 

[Mudda]

So what;s the scientific angle that ties the preferred invisible being to the universe? Now remember, your answer should pass scientific scrutiny, not "we've been through this before", that didn't pass.

The laws of nature existed before space and time.

No such thing has been scientifically proven. Nor does this statement tie in scientifically with the certainty of god existing.

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

 

[ding]

The laws of nature existed before space and time.

No such thing has been scientifically proven. Nor does this statement tie in scientifically with the certainty of god existing.

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Here is the link you asked for.

 

[Mudda]

No such thing has been scientifically proven. Nor does this statement tie in scientifically with the certainty of god existing.

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

 

[ding]

Sure it has and sure it does. Can you prove it isn't and doesn't? I'll wait.

That's not how scientific scrutiny works. If it can't be proven scientifically, then you have nothing. Nobody needs to disprove anything. You are disproven when you can't meet the standard of scientific proof.

And nothing has been proven to be existing before the BB. Nor does anything of the BB tie in scientifically to a god.

Not true. You do not know how science works. If they Eddington had not observed the shift of the star's position during the eclipse, Einstein's theory of realtivity would have been proven wrong. So you see, dipstick, science does prove negatives. Try again. Can you prove the laws of nature did not exist before space and time? I'll wait.

That's like saying "can you prove that god doesn't exist?" God is not a scientific theory. Neither is name calling. So do you have a link to a science leaning site that proves that there was something before the BB? Or is that just a personal delusion?

I didn't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. I asked you to prove the Laws of Nature were not in place before space and time. Two different things.

Then do you have a link to real scientists with real science explaining what they found and how they found it?

Yes, all of their work is based on observations that every point in the universe is moving away from us and that the solution of the general theory of relativity shows that 14 billion years ago our universe started in a hot dense state “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom” and expanded and cooled. Every single model uses this as their history matching. Even the cyclic models which no one believes anymore because they violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

My goodness.... you are one of those flat earthers you were ridiculing just a few minutes ago. Thank you for proving my point that "They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes."