A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: Jack Oskar Larm ()
Date: November 23, 2007 05:18AM


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 in Hell 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 souls 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 which explains why,
last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."


Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: Sparky ()
Date: January 07, 2008 09:38AM

I don't believe this is a true question/email, nor would I believe it would receive an A+ in a science class in CHEMISTRY...nor in PHYSICS which is where the question would be relevant . While this is obviously a joke, I will at least let you know it put a smile on my face anyway. Good job!

Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: Imjustme ()
Date: January 15, 2008 10:29PM

If I may add some comments to this discussion;

First of all, Hell is not in time, else it would have a terminus.

Secondly, Hell is not a "place", as such. It is a state of existence
charactarized by the absence of God, and therefore the antithesis
of His glory and blessed presence.

We must understand that God is absolute, and He exists in the eternal
state, which is also absolute. The reason souls are doomed to reside
apart from His presence is that they cross the barrier of time, where
all things are temporal and everchanging, into the province of the eternal,
where all things are static and unchanging.

Thus, whatever status their soul is in at the moment of this transition, it
will remain constant, and cannot be altered. For example, an over-
simplification perhaps, if we carry a glass of milk into eternity it will
never change temperature, never sour, or change in any way, FOREVER.

There are two prerequisites to being accepted into God's Kingdom;
that we share His Righteousness, and His Eternal Life. These are imputed
to us at the moment of salvation, along with 37 other factors. The one
critical necessity is that we recieve these attributes in time, where we
exist in an environment of alterable conditions. This is, in fact, why the
infinite genius of God engineered time, and built into it the element of

In essence, those who end up in Heaven only differ from those who end
up in The Lake of Fire in that the former have aquired the attributes of +R
and +EL prior to crossing the frontier between time and eternity.

It is a serious error to assume that God condemns souls to hell merely
because they have not met an arbitrary standard. He is infinite Love,
and He loves the damned just as much as He loves the saved, however,
He cannot come into contact with, or condone sin, or He is not God.
This is the "season" in which God permits sin to exist, but even now He
has placed the stellar Universe in position as the buffer between Himself
and corruption. Therefore, when a soul fails to accept the saving work of
Jesus Christ, and thereby recieve the two essential attributes of God before
leaving this life, God has no recourse but to separate from them entirely.

If it were possible, God would configure hell much like this Earth, where
life is at least tolerable, with many moments of pleasure and relative
contentment. But even the environment in which we exist requires to
presence and management of the Creator. I suggest that there is no
scientific explanation, nor any other arguement, which satisfies the
puzzle; how is it that the other planets and moons in our immediate
solar system are piles of rocks, or spheres of gas, where it is not
possible for life to exist, and yet the Earth is an exception? The more
we learn about the intricate forces that govern our world, the more
evidence there is that a genius beyond our comprehension devied it,
and expressly to sustain life.

Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: Jack Oskar Larm ()
Date: January 16, 2008 05:41AM

I think you'll find there are rules at this forum for preaching. Besides that, the post was supposed to be humour.

Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: Imjustme ()
Date: January 16, 2008 10:30PM

Really? And what, exactly, comprises "preaching"? If offering my understanding
of the issue at hand is "preaching", then I beg your forgiveness, sir.

Incidentally, the humor was not lost on me, but I was wondering what this
subject matter has to do with cult activity, which is allegedly the thrust of
this site? If you are so inflexible as to subject matter that you chastise me
for what you define as "preaching", then perhaps you should examine your
own behavior in this regard. :O)

Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: freedom fighter ()
Date: January 17, 2008 02:38PM

I do believe that you hit on something here. Humour. That's the whole point. The simplicity of humor. I thought it was great. Thanks for posting it.


Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: Imjustme ()
Date: January 17, 2008 07:30PM

Preaching? If expressing my understanding of the subject at hand is preaching,
then accept my profound apologies, Jack. I hate it when the word police are
nipping at my six!

Bye the bye, old boy, on the topic of subject matter, I fail to see what a humorous
depiction of hell has to do with cults(?), not that I take offense. I would suggest,
my fine feathered friend, that you harangue me for a splinter in my eye, while
you have a telephone pole in your own.

(Forgive my attempt at Biblical humor):O)

Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: freedom fighter ()
Date: January 18, 2008 08:32AM

Hello Imjustme,

You fail to see what a humorous depiction of hell has to do with cults?

I admire this fellow, Jack Oskar Larm, because he is considerate enough to post something that would create a bit of joy for those who care to read it.

I, being an escapee from a cult conceaved from hell, find absolute delight in a lighter/laughable depiction of the subject.

On the subject of preaching: feel free. This world is full of it's fair share of them. I sure say my opinion on this sight. What's one more. We are all here to say how we feel. If we all had the same few point we'd be walking clones of one another.


Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: Jack Oskar Larm ()
Date: January 18, 2008 09:14AM

Okay, my apologies, Imjustme. I re-read your post and now see that it was humorous too. As Freedom Fighter and Sparky have stated, we need more humour, especially in this dark and heavy time.

Re: A Scientific View Of Hell?
Posted by: Imjustme ()
Date: January 18, 2008 07:46PM

Amen to that, brother. In my humble opinion, humor is an underrated antidote for
many adverse conditions.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.