how long can a soul burn?

[wesmorris]

Is it that je ne se qua, wes?

Thank you. That sounds much cooler.

 

[spamandham]

Both the Holy Quran and the bible clearly talk about a literal hell reserved for sinners/haters of god and rigteousness. These two great books written by inspired prophets cannot all be wrong.

Sure they can. BTW, the Bible has multiple authors, and they can all be wrong as well.

The one who claims there is no hell is just looking for comfort in case he does not qualify to spend eternity in paradise.
DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF HELL WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACT OF ITS EXISTENCE.

Neither will ALL CAPS bring about its existence.

Hell is a place for spirits/souls; that is why no scientist or geographer will be able to verify its existence.

Then you agree that its existence can not be verified?

 

[Jenyar]

Then you agree that its existence can not be verified?

Of course it can't be verified. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that we can't know about it. After all, we only know about life on earth because we are on earth.

 

[spamandham]

Of course it can't be verified. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that we can't know about it. After all, we only know about life on earth because we are on earth.

Nonverifiability does not imply nonexistence, but it does imply that it is unreasonable to believe in such existence.

 

[wesmorris]

Nonverifiability does not imply nonexistence, but it does imply that it is unreasonable to believe in such existence.

I will agree with you if you can show how you verify the existence of yourself.

The point being that I believe it is reasonable to believe in the existence of one's "self" but it is ultimately unverifiable. As such I think there is one exception to the rule you apply. It is acceptable IMO, to have faith in reason. I think reason leads directly to existence of self.

 

[spamandham]

I will agree with you if you can show how you verify the existence of yourself.

The point being that I believe it is reasonable to believe in the existence of one's "self" but it is ultimately unverifiable. As such I think there is one exception to the rule you apply. It is acceptable IMO, to have faith in reason. I think reason leads directly to existence of self.

I have physical evidence for my existence. I believe in reason because my senses tell me that contradictions do not exist in actuality. Is it possible that my senses fool me? Yes, but as they also tell me I'm still alive as the result of paying attention to them, I'm willing to give them that.

 

[wesmorris]

I have physical evidence for my existence. I believe in reason because my senses tell me that contradictions do not exist in actuality. Is it possible that my senses fool me? Yes, but as they also tell me I'm still alive as the result of paying attention to them, I'm willing to give them that.

Ah, so you have faith in reason for exactly the same reasons as I. It's a leap of faith of zero distance.

So since we agree on that point (which you put well I thought), let me ask you something else that gets me about "reality".

I get a little hung up on the term "actuality" as you used it above. I think you mean "physicality" right? I mean, there is no reason thoughts can't be contractory (in fact they are very much that way) and I believe them to be part of "actuality".

So this just led me to the thought: Three dimension allows contradictions in two dimensions. Four dimensions allows contradictions in three. I'm not sure if that's valid though, it just sort of snuck up on me.

EDIT: Yeah I think that last part is exactly backwards. Three dimensions can be contradictory to two, and four dimensions can be contradictory to three.