Sketches on Atheism

Why don’t you just burn in Heaven!

There’s been a lot of discussion about Hell this week, especially from this apologist, David, so it might be timely to re-post this reassuring little number from 2013: Heaven is hotter than Hell.

Heaven_HellIt’s just one of those oddities that causes your brain to do little summersaults. Heaven is hotter than Hell. It sounds comical, certainly counterintuitive, but the math just doesn’t lie. Heaven, according to Isaiah 30:26, is where “the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days.” Taken as read, Heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition 49 times more, meaning fifty times in all. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation [(H/E)4 = 50 where E is the absolute temperature of the earth 300°K (273+27)] gives the temperature of H (Heaven) as 525°C. Hell, according to Revelations 21:8 is where the “fearful and unbelieving shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” Now here’s the fun part. A lake of molten brimstone (sulfur) means that its temperature must be at or below its boiling point, 444.6°C. Above that point and it’d be a vapor, not a lake. Heaven (525°C) is therefore hotter than Hell (<444.6°C).

It’s the cognitive equivalent of injecting warm chocolate directly into the hypothalamus, and since being published in Applied Optics (August, 1972) has become a favourite of godless (baby-eating) heathen’s eager, as always, to annoy bombastic biblical literalists. What isn’t as well known is that seven years later a convoluted rebuttal was published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results by a rather head-strong Dr. Tim Healey; a man determined to do whatever it took to re-establish the standard arrangement of these post-obituary destinations. His argument, and I’ll lighten the load here, stemmed from errors he saw in the calculation of Hells pressure; errors he stressed which would increase the boiling point of sulfur. Now, most don’t know it but Hell has a GPS location: 31°46′49″N 35°14′24″E / 31.78028°N 35.24000°E, otherwise known as the Jehoshaphat valley; a 7,000,000m2 Iron Age sacrificial pit-come-refuse-dump where sulfurous smelling fires were maintained around the clock to consume it. “Have we any data as to the pressure likely to be found in Hell?” asked Healey in 1979. “The answer is Yes. A 19th century mathematician [Neiht] has already provided the groundwork for us and we may feel confident that by the year 2000 the total number of the damned will be at least 29,422,641,251,519,917,000 souls.” There is a method to this glorious madness which can be perused here, but for our purposes let’s just say Healey went to great lengths to look at the Ideal Gas Equation and how it applied to the finite volume of the Jehoshaphat valley (Gehinnon), the gaseous component of the human body, the dynamics of electromagnetic repulsion, the proposed arrangement of souls in Hell (no more than two layers otherwise those in the middle layers would escape Hells full rigours), and ultimately how it all shifted the phase diagram of sulphur. And here’s his final calculations:

So that, the volume available in Gehenna is 60 x 106 x 2m2 and the original volume of the damned is 0.06 x 29.422641 x 1018m3, then, at constant temperature (which we assume, taking equilibrium) P1V1 = P2V2 or P2 = P1V1/V2 substituting (1) P[29 x 6 x 1016] / [2 x 6 x 107] = 14.5 x 109 atmospheres.

Now let us see what pressure is needed to liquefy sulphur vapour at 525°C. We have, using the Clausius-Cleypeyron equation in its integrated form, Log P = 7.43268 – 3268.2/T where P = Pressure in mm Hg and T = the elevated boiling point in °K, so that Log P = 7.43287 – 93268.2/798) = 3.3373813, whence, (2) P = 2174.607 mm Hg = 2.86 atmospheres.  (1)  is so much greater than (2) that Revelations 21:8 indicates a temperature very considerably higher than 525°C. Thus, Hell is hotter than Heaven.

Now thankfully for me and every other mathematically challenged individual on the planet this labyrinthine mess amounts to absolutely nothing as both calculations are, I’m happy to say, categorically wrong. Heaven and Hell have the same calefaction: 37°C… the temperature of the human brain where both mythological destinations are birthed, lived, and will ultimately cease to exist when the thermometer inside said gullible brain falls to room temperature.

101 thoughts on “Why don’t you just burn in Heaven!

  1. Yeah, yeah either way, the temperature doesn’t bother me. What’s a few tens of degrees between friends and enemies. I’m more interested in who I’m spending my eternity with. And I sure don’t want it to be with [insert all the obvious ones] whereas I’m happy to be with the evil sinners in an eighty degrees less eternity. Please tell noisy Ark to keep that loud guitar down though.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. But, Mr. Zande, you fall into the same fundamentalist error as fundamentalist believers – taking everything literally. (Translation: you are taking away our fudge capability.)


      • He had mentioned he was going to take it down, but I didn’t expect it to go so soon.
        He did an entire post dedicated to slating me as a troll. I felt quite honoured! He must have spent ages collating all that nonsense.
        Quite the fanatic and an innerantist as well, like his new buddy James.

        They are something else these people. He reminds of Citizen Tom.
        I wonder what he councils about?


      • Insanitybytes did a post on me then wouldn’t let me comment. How’s that for insane 🙂

        I’d imagine he counsels those who’re straying. I hope he has nothing to do with actual “study,” because that type of jaundice perspective on reality is not healthy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s happened to me on at least half a dozen sites where some portion of a comment I have made has been used as a springboard for a response post… only to then moderate and/or ban me from having any further commentary! That tactic demonstrates the lack of intellectual integrity by poster. And IB22 is a case in point: she doesn’t know how to respect those who disagree with her about her religious beliefs and she doesn’t know how to take responsibility for that lack she exhibits.

        Liked by 1 person

      • James has already banned me because he can’t be bothered to defend the shit he writes. And that is what it is: shit.

        This latest piece of shit demonstrates once again his intellectual incapacity to be honest… even with himself. He actually believes this shit is strong enough to overthrow the most profoundly insightful and productive model ever devised: evolution. James thinks this shit does the job while conveniently ignoring the fact that the evolution model produces applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time and advances human knowledge with new and productive fields of inquiry. James doesn’t care about any of that; he’s got his shit to shovel. The inconvenience this working model we call evolution causes to him is dismissed by James with tired retreads of creationist tropes… not realizing that all his work is still before him to explain how life changes over time. Expecting reality to have some sway over his opinions is misguided because his brain simply doesn’t work when it comes to criticisms of his religious necessities. And POOFism by Oogity Boogity is a necessity for him, poor little guy. So I miss neither his arrogance nor his ignorance, both of which are essential ingredients for his shit. And he’s welcome to continue to think he can feast on his own colon and benefit by it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You say this so beautifully, Tildeb. In fact, I have one of your comments saved which I refer to in such debates. It begins like this: “If by ‘theory’ you are referring to what is called the modern synthesis, then there is no debate in the scientific community. None whatsoever. The only debate is foisted by creationists…”


      • Just to clarify a matter on the post from James on Evolution. He had originally enabled comments and I saw a detailed response from one commentator that point be point dismantled his arguments. I was very impressed! The next day I went back to have another look at the comment and lo and behold it had disappeared.

        I concluded as a result that James was actually not interested in truth. If he really was interested in truth he would have left up the contrary opinion and shown why it was ‘the Devil’s lies’. I find the approach of deleting inconvenient comments to be so disappointing, so much so that it causes me to doubt everything he says. Much like an infamous convoluted commentator and active moderator on another blog.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, James (and many others) simply delete those comments which prove their worldview wrong. And it is disappointing. They are admitting that they have no interest in reality. The really frustrating part about it all, though, is they will repeat the information they “know” is wrong next week. Sometimes I wonder how these people sleep at night, when they’re alone with their own thoughts.


  3. As always, John, this is an awesome take on things. I’m savoring your book, and I like the absurd Universe. One thing I find sad while reading it is that it makes better argument than the classical apologetics for Christianity.

    I think it adds more sweetness to the mockery.


    • The universe absurd, yes. I enjoyed writing that part. Actually, it was one of the main teleological questions I was going to ask theists, WHY SO BIG?, but so far haven’t had much opportunity.

      Be keen to hear your thoughts when you’re done.

      Liked by 1 person

      • One of the short thoughts I had was from a discussion I had with a different blogger about belief that a deity created the entire Universe.

        If that is true, and this deity created it in such a fashion that it would look different than it actually is (like billions of years older, etc.), then it requires that this deity is a liar.

        I haven’t harped on this point much, but it’s always been something I’ve been meaning to get around to.

        In a similar vein, I also realized I hadn’t apologized to you for my involvement in David’s debacle. I do apologize for any perceived legitimacy I gave to his efforts to do whatever he was trying to do to you and Ark. I’m still not fully understanding why he’d do such a thing.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Well pictures of heaven (sorry it’s hard to type that out without laughing) always seem to show a lot of white about so heaven would appear to have a high albedo. So the surface temperature might not be too bad if the surface albedo is like 90% as opposed to the 30% right now. The problem with all that radiation is skin burn/cancer and blindness. Perhaps some very dark shades and some all over white clothing will help. At best, it seems like most people in heaven look like Saudia Arabians. lol

    Liked by 1 person

  5. And then there’s this supposed answer given by a chem student on the bonus question:

    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 go out with you”, and take into account the fact that I went out with her last night, then number 2 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!”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The atheists always looks foolish when he subjects the great literature of antiquity to his lost-somewhere-in-time, post modern values.

    The correct way to interpret the literature of antiquity is to learn the values and world view of the people who inhabited that time period.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Let’s see, SOM is wrong again. Please do show that all atheists have “post-modern values”. Do also show what “post-modern values” are. Or are you just making vague claims again, SOM?

      it is indeed useful to interpret literature of antiquity by knowing the values and world view of the people who wrote it. This does do quite a job of showing that your bible is not from some god but from just regular old humans. Now, we do know that the literature of antiquity does reflect that many of those humans accepted that slavery was fine, that other gods existed, and that magic worked. I am quite happy that humans have advanced beyond such nonsense. The values of those authors of antiquity are often nothing to be proud of.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Club,

        To be an atheist means believing in the ridiculous notion that everything just happened all by itself.

        Consequently, it takes a special kind of crippled intellect to be an atheist.

        And that crippled, atheist intellect is simply incapable of taking the atheist outside the confines of his own little mind.

        That’s why you folks can never understand the true meaning of modern science, or how others besides yourselves actually think and feel.

        So in lieu of reality, the atheist hallucinates.

        You all do it because that is the nature of atheism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ah, so you can’t show that all atheists have “postmodern” beliefs nor can you explain what those are. Congratulations, for again demonstrating that you just flail about making baseless claims, SOM.

        So, how is that you believe that your god happened by itself, if that’s such a silly thing to believe?

        Nice to see more attempts at being insulting with more baseless claims. Please do show that disbelieving in a baseless claim is evidence of a “crippled intellect”. For if it is, SOM, then your intellect is quite sad since it doubts all of the gods that other people believe in.

        Please do tell us the meaning of “modern science”. I may not know exactly how you think and feel, but I certainly am familiar with how Christians think and feel, having been one. Of course, any other theist can claim that you have no idea on how others think and feel and make the same claim as you that this is somehow evidence for their god.

        Again, poor SOM. Please do show how atheists hallucinates. Where is this evidence of your god, SOM? Surely, if it is so obvious, you can point to it, right? You wouldn’t have to rely on the exact same claims as other theists do, would you?


  7. The Spouse wants me to take her to town so I don’t have time to read through all the comments, just hope that I’m not repeating some other researcher’s research:

    “Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, “why do airplanes fly?” on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: “Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof.”

    Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

    “First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.

    Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and 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 in volume in hell. Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:

    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.
    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 quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, “that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you” and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true…Thus, hell is exothermic.”

    The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.


    I hope this is germane to the issue and adds some enlightenment to all you hell-bound hideous hairy-oaf heathens. Certainly it explained a lot to me …

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Very funny: applying logic and science to theology. Whatever will they think of next? It’s a bit like asking Father Christmas for a particle excelerator in your stocking.


  9. You silly atheist. Heaven has powerful air conditioning to cool things down, whereas Hell has a blast furnace to heat things up.

    Besides, spiritual bodies (which are non-physical by definition) remain unaffected by kinetic energy.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Pingback: The Lie About Creation | Amusing Nonsense

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s