| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: General Forums :: Schooling Fish |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| The existance of Hell | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| Wu-banga |
|
||
Registered Member #49
Joined: Tue Dec 06 2005, 01:37AMPosts: 1561 |
his was too creative not to pass along...... HELL EXPLAINED BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well: Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following: First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls inHell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of soul s in Hell then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being whic explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God." THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A" |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Knightrider |
|
||
Meteor 2016
Registered Member #316
Joined: Mon Jun 26 2006, 09:14PMPosts: 3503 |
Lmao! | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| BuBBLe GooSe |
|
||
The Original MilfHunter
Registered Member #163
Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 02:24PMPosts: 1592 |
Yeah, that's hella funny. But clealy the only percaption of 'hell' that this student is basing his opinions on is some sort of firery grave, then he is sadly misinterpreting the entire Judeo-Christian meaning. I am assuming that he was an American and thus, he was raised under the the perception of some sort of 'Christian' sytem of values. Not necessarily a " 'In God We Trust' but rather a 'my parents belive in this manner, hence I have been born into believing in the same way that they do" kinda thing. Granted, I am willing to concede to the fact that his religion or methodology of belief differs from mine, it just seems to me that his whole perception of 'hell' revolves around some 'Bugs Bunny' type of cartoon. Anyone who watched such cartoons knows what I mean. A red Devil with hrns and a pitch fork. A bunch of fire, a red-devilish figure that was created back in the 50-60's when people actally had sort of moral standing. There is no way to know for sure what lays ahead until we actually die. Isn't that the whole idea that surrounds the 'after-life'?? After life in itself presupposes that life is over and what becomes after it, we as the living cannot possibly know. Who is to say for sure that the 'temperature in hell' is any different than that which we experience here?? Hell, for all accounts can be a 68 degrees, or it could be 200 degrees. The thing is that temperature is relative to our senses in that it is our coporeal(bodily) being that experiences it. When our soul reaches hell, will our soul have the same perception of temperature as our body will??!? Ray Bradbury postulated that 'books burn at 451 degrees Fareighnheight ' thus the title of his book. Who is to say that our soul, that which enters heaven/hell, even experiences something such as 'temperature' when temperature is merely reflective of how heat reacts on ones physical body. With that being said, this student's whole premise is negated simply on the fact that he is indeed still alive. Follow me?!? Our own perceptions of the afterlife are strictly parallel to our own modes of faith, whether it be a form of religion or scepticism. Any Atheist will simply tell you that there is no God, thus there is no heaven nor heaven's opposite, being hell. The equilibrium that religion presupposes, whether it be Heaven vs Hell or the 'Devil' aka Lucifer (a fallen angel) vs the Archangel St. Michael (because the Judeo-Christian perspective believes that God has no reciprocal opposite) then where do we go? Many people believe that its a God vs Devil kinda thing, however scripture tells us that God is above all and that the Archangel, St. Michael is the Devil's archenemy. Oops Pow Surprise! Many of us who go to Church on Sundays believe that it is a God vs. Devil kinda thing because we don't actually read the Bible or that we are oblivious to the sermon because we are too hungover. Those of us who actually listen to the sermon and beieve in a certain Catholic perception of religion know that God does not have an equal. That's the whole point. As Christians (I'm willing to accept that many of us, given that as North Americans, Christianity is the dominant school of thought) believe that there is a 'greater good', a Summam Bonum in Latin; that has existed prior to ourselves and that will continue long after our bodies have perished. Christianity has been around for what, 2000 years? other religions have not lasted nearly as long. Personally, I thing that Catholocism/Christianity is the 'perfect trap' in that you are Baptied into it by your parents, adn you are expected to follow it. It is a difficult religion to opt out of yet it it relatively easy to get into. I don't really want to get into all of that,,,, just ask Zeus and other Greek gods, Roman paganistic gods and the like.  What I'm trying to get at is simply this.... Any Fucktard who is Naive enough to write a response such as that should be given a failing mark. Any professor who gives a response such as that an 'A' should be fucked in the ass. There is no redeaming quality to 'that'(Wu's post) ^^^ answer at all. Great, if that course was a 'how to be a fuckin comedian 101', then give him an A++, but if he was trying to achieve a reasonable grade in a semi-respected intellectual institution, then he should have recieved a fuckin F-. Let us examine the initial question... "Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?" The answer is fuckin neither. 'Heat', as i mentioned earlier, is simply a response to our corporeal (bodily) being. Who is to say that our soul even experiences heat?? Our bodies may experience heat but that is based on our senses, mainly touch. When we are 6 feet under or burnt via a cremation, our body cannot experience that which our senses dicatate because our senses are no longer applicable given the fact that we are dead AKA: our brain cannot comprehend the sense data that our nerves are sending through our spinal coloumn into our brain. Am I the only one who has a semi-clear understanding as to the distinction between body and 'soul'? Obviously I put 'soul' into quotations but to assume there is a Hell/heaven is to assume that some part of us makes the 'trip to go there' and because it isn't our actual body, then what else is there? If you are buried or burned, then there is some proof to those who are still living that YOU once existed via your remains. If you believe in the afterlife then there has to be some part of you aside from your tangible body, that makes the transition. Believing in the afterlife presupposes that you believe in a 'soul' because clearly your body doesn't vanish from its resting spot and mysteriously rises from the grave 3 days after burial. (Unless you're Jesus aka: the cave and such, but nobody here is God...) < If anyone caught that then they have paid attention during Chruch especially during Easter mass. The response that the dude said was "I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. " Who is to say every religion has the same perception of hell? Some religions belive in re-incarnation. If he assumes that there is a 'hell', then he assumes that souls must travel there. My response is that who is to say that ANY souls have even gone there?! Speaking from his Judeo-Christian perspective and his assumption that God is merciful and forgiving, why is it not possible to assume taht God has forgiven all sins and allowed EVERY soul into heaven?! Know what I mean? Who can honestly say that there is even 1 single soul in hell? Hitler, by all accounts, could have made a death-bed confessional, been given last rights, turned a leaf and made it into purgatory aka: Heaven's waiting room. Once someone enters Purgatory, that is a gaurantee that they will enter heaven, its just a matter of time. The Catholic Church concedes tha tit does not know who is in hell for certain. They also have come to believe that they know who is in Heaven, for certain. SAINTS. They are the only ones who the Church believes are 100% in heaven. When a person is cannonized, that begins the sainthood process. Only SAINTS are 100% believed to be in heaven, likewise, the Church (Vatican City, Pope) cannot gaurantee in the same way that a person is infact in hell. (There is an assumption that Hitler is in hell, but even teh Church cannot say 100%) That alone is a testament to the forgiveness and mercy that God has. I know that this might look long therefore people probably won't read it. Sorry Wu, but after all, I am known as a 'thread killer' when it somes to certain topics. Hopefully I haven't discouraged people from replying. If I have,,,, see you in helll mo-fucka!!!
|
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Skitso |
|
||
When you least expect it...
Registered Member #401
Joined: Sun Aug 27 2006, 12:08AMPosts: 25 |
Uhhh... I didn't read any of that.... |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Amped |
|
||
Hi
Registered Member #301
Joined: Thu Jun 15 2006, 01:55AMPosts: 888 |
Goose, while your last post was by no means a thread killer, it was a massive outburst of hypocrisy. By definition, religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." I think it's safe to assume that a person is entitled to believe what he or she wants. If that is a faulty assumption, then by all means, correct me. You, on the other hand, are making assumptions that cannot be deemed valid. You assume that he is basing his theory at all on Judeo-Christian concepts. You assume that he is an American. You assume that he was raised as a Christian. I could just click the "Reply to thread" button here, because your whole argument was based on assumptions and not truths. But because I found the rest of your post so interesting, I would be delighted to continue. I do agree with you on your next major point, Goose. Who is to say for sure that the temperature in hell is any different from the temperature where anyone on this forum lives. Who is to say for sure that we will feel any kind of heat when we go to hell. Who is to say for sure that we go to hell? Who is to say for sure that there is a hell? Who cares what is sure and what is not? This students response, whether intended to be humorous or not, is purely based on a hypothesis. Returning to Dictionary.com, a hypothesis is "a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument." Hence, unless you're trying to say that this student has no right to believe what he wants, then you have no right to make an argument out of the fact that his hypotheses might not be correct. You'll notice that Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is a theory. It is not the "Law of Relativity." The Theory of Relativity had to begin as a hypothesis. As soon as it reached the point of being widely accepted, it became a theory. If it is ever possible to prove the theory for sure, it may in fact become a law. Hypotheses on the after-life, though, can hardly ever become theories, and they can never become laws. Though a group of people may believe the same basic ideas regarding hell, everyone has their own mental image of what it looks like, how it feels, etc. With that being said, your whole premise is negated simply on the fact that one cannot argue a person's beliefs. The only difference between this response to a chemistry question and the bible is that the bible is widely read and believed. This does not make the bible any more true than something I shit out into the toilet. Unlike you though, I have no problem with anyone believing that hell is exothermic, that the bible is true, or that Ronald Reagan is satan. Our own perceptions of the afterlife are strictly parallel to our own modes of faith, whether it be a form of religion or scepticism. That is the most credible statement you've made thus far. In fact, I'm pretty sure you just made my argument for me. You obviously agree with me in that a person can believe what he or she wants. So I'll ask again, why are you arguing against this student's logical response? He used a set of beliefs(that he is fully entitled to have), and, step-by-step, explained his hypothesis. What is wrong with that? Isn't it what you just did in your response? Though I don't quite see the argumentative purpose of the rest of that paragraph, I found one statement to be very interesting. Christianity has been around for what, 2000 years? other religions have not lasted nearly as long. Christianity began around 40 C.E., following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, a member of the Jewish faith. Logically, wouldn't this mean that Judaism came first? Let me check Wikipedia on this. Ah, yes, it seems that Judaism is the oldest recorded monotheistic faith. But why stop here? Hinduism is believed to have began in 1500 B.C.E., about 100 years before the Jewish torah is thought to have been written. It's accepted by many that Zoroastrianism was started before Hinduism, by the prophet Zarathustra. It also seems that Jainism first existed in the 8th century B.C.E., and Buddhism spread through Asia after the death of Siddartha Gautama, in 483 B.C.E. Of these, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism have a significant group of followers today. So, Christianity only really beats out Islam when it comes to age. Getting back on topic, you regress from your semi-intellectual argument to basically saying that this student should have failed. I disagree, completely. You're correct in saying that this question is factually unanswerable. Yet every other existing theory today is factually unanswerable at this point in time. This student received an A because he logically explained his answer. There is no fact to back it up, so he used his personal beliefs. In a situation like this, the teacher was not looking for truth. He was looking for reasoning behind the student's answer. The student's reasoning was flawless. This is saying that, if his opinion was backed up by fact, he would be what you consider "correct." This is impossible, though, so he answered the question, once again, based on his personal beliefs. He is entitled to them. And then you return to the "who's to say" argument. Who are you to say that he's wrong, Goose? Who are you to say that he can't believe what he wants, and make an argument about it? You might be the only person to understand the distinction between body and soul. Considering the soul is based on faith, I think you'd be the only one who could do that. I'm amazed that you've fully grasped a concept that exists only in the minds of its believers, and in infinitely varying forums. Your argument is flip-flopping back and forth. First you take a Judeo-Christian point of view. Then you go back to your "who's to say" bullshit, trying to convince your audience that you are taking no sides. You can make a whole argument from a "who's to say" mentality, but you'd look like an idiot. This guy isn't forcing his beliefs unto anyone. He's answering a question that was only possible to answer based on beliefs. You're right, he can't say that this is the truth, and he isn't. It is his hypothesis on the matter. And you once again return to your Judeo-Christian perspective saying that Saints are the only ones who we know go to heaven, and that once someone enters the purgatory they are guaranteed to go to heaven. And then you flop back saying no one can be sure that there is a single soul in hell. Pick a side. This student answered the question he was presented with. Because it was impossible to base his answer on truths, he used his own personal beliefs. He is entitled to these beliefs, as are you to yours, and I to mine. The point is he logically explained why hell must be exothermic, according to his own beliefs. That is what the professor was looking for. The reasoning behind it, and not the truth. But who's to say that this isn't the truth? Not you or I. Not anyone. (For anyone who might be confused... I love bubble goose. But arguing is just so damn fun, especially when you get to write massive essays on forums.) |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| OO Agent |
|
||
Master of pZoneage
Registered Member #44
Joined: Sun Dec 04 2005, 07:44PMPosts: 62 |
omg that was great lmao! | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Wu-banga |
|
||
|
Registered Member #49
Joined: Tue Dec 06 2005, 01:37AM Posts: 1561 |
amped and bubble how old are you guys? lmao you can bang out essays that easy. thats crazy | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Amped |
|
||
|
Hi
Registered Member #301
Joined: Thu Jun 15 2006, 01:55AM Posts: 888 |
I'm 16. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Angry Leprechau |
|
||
Uber Luchador
Registered Member #189
Joined: Sun Apr 02 2006, 04:16AMPosts: 345 |
wrote ... WAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
"It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being whic explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God." |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| BuBBLe GooSe |
|
||
|
The Original MilfHunter
Registered Member #163
Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 02:24PM Posts: 1592 |
Sup Amped. I didn't want to some off as 'hypocriticalist' (Ali G reference), but at the same time I was merely trying to touch base on a variety of issues and trying to avoid making this a 20 pager.  I'm gonna take a 'home-made' approach the quoting. A copy/paste thing cuz to box it out will take my hungover ass way too long.
Amped-"I think it's safe to assume that a person is entitled to believe what he or she wants. If that is a faulty assumption, then by all means, correct me."
Entitled is a troubling word for me. In a sense, yes we do have the inherent ability to do what we want to; whether it be jump off of a bridge, or stand up and get a glass of water. But you have to apply this notion in a real-world sense given that this form of entitlement is still rather limited. For instance, I may have the ability to sit here and all of a sudden, convert to Judaism. Great, now I'm Jewish. I can believe what I want right? The problem is, to be fully Jewish, I believe you need to talk to a Rabbi, read some scripture, have some sort of initiaion ceremony and such. Therefore, eventhough I may be entitled to believe whatever I want, I still need to 'pass the test' in order to be accepted into the Jewish community. For all purposes, the Rabbi could think that I'm a douche and that I'm converting to his faith for the wrong reasons, the Temple-goers and certified Jews may not accept me into their religion. Hence, eventhough I have the ability to believe whatever I want to, it may be limited to my own mind. To partake in the physical aspects of Judaism and actually fulfill what it means to be a believer, my entitlement to my beliefs may not be all that is necessary. I'm trying to get across an idea and used Judaism as an example. ) them. We can't be sure that there is even a single soul in hell, be we know that Saints are gauranteed in heaven. 3 options, Heaven/Hell/Purgatory. We are sure Saints are in heaven. purgatory means those souls need cleansing prior to entering heaven, but they will enter heaven. The Church doesn't make any claims as to knowing who is in hell for sure. We cannot know God's mercifulness and such, we cannot say what there is even a single soul there. Saddam may very well deserve to go there, but nobody here is in a position to cast judgement.
Amped- "This student answered the question he was presented with. Because it was impossible to base his answer on truths, he used his own personal beliefs. He is entitled to these beliefs, as are you to yours, and I to mine. The point is he logically explained why hell must be exothermic, according to his own beliefs. That is what the professor was looking for. The reasoning behind it, and not the truth. But who's to say that this isn't the truth? Not you or I. Not anyone."
He answered the question, great. He used his personal beliefs. I believe that 2+2=7. That's what I believe therefore I cannot be wrong. I believe that what Hitler did was OK< shit I must be right, here I'll type a logical 2 pager on why I consider Hitler is my homeboy, and given that it is logical, you must accept my opinion because you cannot question it. Is that what your getting at? Just because someone is 'entitled' to having an opinion, does not mean that their opinion is correct and to say that I cannot argue it is whack.
|
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|