Discussion Chance to date this girl: Hell freezing over!

[seph ir oth]

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington engineering mid-term. The answer was so "profound" that the Professor shared it with colleagues, and the sharing obviously hasn't ceased... 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 off 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 that souls are moving into Hell and the rate 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 us 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, you will go to Hell. Since there are 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 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. Of course, 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 Banyan 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 still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze." This student received the only bonus.

Got this in an email, loved it ever since.

 

[Eilhal]

That is AMAZING

 

[Rinpun]

Hahaha! This is one for the records

But of course, as all "good" theories, it does have its obvious flaws. Like, for instance, it isn't proper logic to assume that because a lot of religions say if you don't believe in it you go to Hell that it means that everyone is going to Hell. There can't be thousands of almighty Gods as it would contradict the very nature of having an almighty God. Thus, assuming that any of these religions was right (and you have to assume they're all correct if you are to conclude that positively everyone is going to go to Hell), you would assume there would be at least multiple Gods. They may not all be almighty, but they would still contradict the presence of other Gods with more power and et cetera.

 

[Eilhal]

but since we have no way to prove religion would he not have to assume either all religion as true or all religion as false? that is unless he wanted to make a statement for a specifc religion... but there could be more then one god look at the greeks and romans and egyptians and... well.. just about any religion really... well... any ancient religion... and even if there are flaws... he got the extra credit

 

[Sargon]

But of course, as all "good" theories, it does have its obvious flaws. Like, for instance, it isn't proper logic to assume that because a lot of religions say if you don't believe in it you go to Hell that it means that everyone is going to Hell. There can't be thousands of almighty Gods as it would contradict the very nature of having an almighty God. Thus, assuming that any of these religions was right (and you have to assume they're all correct if you are to conclude that positively everyone is going to go to Hell), you would assume there would be at least multiple Gods. They may not all be almighty, but they would still contradict the presence of other Gods with more power and et cetera.

Assuming they're all correct does not mean that you're assuming the existence of a God for each. Given that God is, according to most religions (I can't think of one where this isn't true, but there's a lot of random religions out there I don't know about), all-powerful and can do whatever He wants, I would say that a more likely conclusion is that He puts on a different face for each religion.

But yeah, any way you spin it, that is a fatal flaw in the logic. I'm sure, however, that the guy knew it when he wrote it (if indeed the origin of this is correct, and wasn't just made up by some guy for the purpose of spreading around on the Internet).

 

[MoonRazer]

omg thats awesome!!!!!!!!!! i almost fell out of my chair on that one.

 

[Rinpun]

Exactly, I was just clarifying it as a flaw...either all religion is correct and thus it's contradictory. This would perhaps assume God is "using a different face". However, that implies that truth is relative and, if it was, we as a human race would be quite doomed considering we would be incredibly confused in all of our advances that we say are cold truth...yet not?

But then one would conclude that all religion is incorrect and thus any hope of writing an essay on the Hell that doesn't exist is null.

I doubt he'd be stupid enough to think that he could use that as the basis of any real problem, but it definitely makes an amusing essay and is very worthy of a bonus (I would certainly have given it if I were the professor ).

 

[guitarplay]

A college professor wrote his final exam on one page, consisting of one question. He passed out the exam, and then placed a chair in the front of the room. the one question was, "proove the chair in the center of the room does not exist". One student finished the exam in under 30 seconds, and was the only student to receive an a on the exam. His answer was "what chair".

dunno where i heard it.

 

[Eilhal]

That one I guarentee is false lol.. but if it was true I would say what chair? there is onlt one at the front of the room

 

[corvusHaunt]

I can definately see myself writing the first one. I often jeopardize exam grades by writing the conclusive essays with faux-logic and a blithe attitude towards any topic that is too conventional or opionated. That's a problem, in my opinion, with so many assignments in school now. I see an obscene amount of heavily weighted essays like this. It is difficult to be forced to write the answer they want when it isn't a solution you agree with. They will give you a quote and say "Explain why so-and-so is right".
What? Since when were they right?

Even if I agree, I always write about how I disagree. And I always score poorly. They are right, I am wrong. I will never learn. This means the Educational system has done nothing for me.

 

[Wiseman_2]

corvusHaunt is right. I have been downgraded on five essays this year, purely because I disagreed with what the teacher said I had to prove correct.
Fortunatly I still got high marks, even though what I had wrote could have qualified as the mutterings of an eccentric madman. I don't understand what i've written, but my teachers obviously do, 'cos they grade me high.

And I could see there was gonna end up being some sorta religious debate over hell when I first read this

 

[Eilhal]

I always try to disagree with my teacher when they give me an essay... even if I agree with them because it is more of a challenge to attempt to prove a point you don't believe in.. this also makes sure that your personal opinion doesn't get in the way... Such as:

Is Baseball a good sport?

Yes I think it is (personal opinion)

No because many people misunderstand the game and do not follow it's rules because they are not clearly written or stated (Facts... but idk if they are true... I really doubt they are though lol)

Which one would you give a higher grade as a teacher??

 

[seph ir oth]

You gotta know you teacher whether they are what my friends and I call "liberal teachers" or "I-like-myself teachers". Liberal teachers like papers with arguments in them, even if they disagree with their own opinions. I-like-myself teachers are more oldschool-ish, and want your paper to be their way. I'll make a small graph to demonstrate their seperation:

0 --- 1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5 --- 6 --- 7 --- 8 --- 9 --- 10
Liberal ---------------- Moderate ----------------- I-Like-Myself

I hope you can judge your teachers correctly. My last english teacher was either a 0 or a 1, cause he digged my "I oppose what you teach" paper.

EDIT: Make sure when you say I-Like-Myself, you say it in a really snooty voice, kinda like a spoiled little girl.

 

[InfectedWithDrew]

That was awesome. I will remember this and use it later.

 

[corvusHaunt]

Then there is hope yet!

 

[seph ir oth]

Then there is hope yet!

Rofl, yes, there is hope. All that calculating for nothing!

 

[O4thK33p3r]

check the bibles hell is exothermic, i believe.

funny science religion, nonetheless, rofl

 

[C-Death]

ROFL nice man
+ rep

 

[The Helper]

Bumping for Great Justice! Have you guys read this? OMG!