From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: dismanrc
Who was it that said the any highly advanced science would look like magic a lower species?

Arthur C. Clarke

Great mind and writer...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.

There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).

But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.

Share with us one fact that cannot be verified via the scientific method.

Well, aside from the fields of Philosophy, Theology, History, Language and the Arts, I would probably stick to things assumed to be science:

Psychology has much that the scientific method is useless to probe due to the complexity and irrationality of the subjects and the practicioners. It is far to subjective to be science (IMHO).

Similarly, many components of Evolution remain outside of the application of full scientific method but many grant leeway in the definition of science in regard to evolution so lets not use that.

But if you are wanting very specific things, perhaps the "Superluminal Inflation" of the early universe after the Big Bang, which breaks all the rules of physics, had no observer, is not possible to experiment upon and is based upon entirely circumstantial and possibly misapplied evidence.

Or perhaps, the Big Bang itself is also beyond the scientific method.

Or the "heat death" of the universe.

Or the physics at a timespace singularity (core of a Black hole).

Or in biology, when photosynthesis occurs, the energy produced must travel from photoreceptor to the packager that builds the ATP molecules. As they are no valence, Van der Waals, nuclear or electrostatic forces giving a 'direction' to the transfer, it should propagate only by Brownian Motion and therefore be highly inefficient. It isn't, it seems to take a quantum optimum path and no-one has a clue why. Not even any theory. Of course, this does not preclude it coming under the remit of science at a future date but at present, science has no answers to this observation. As we can't formulate any theory, we can't we experiment by taking an alternate case and proving one theory over another. It just isn't testable.

a reply to: dismanrc

No it is how science works.

Science gains insight on things via observations. Observations are data points. Data points are measurable (on a gross level). Thus something is not formally a theory in science, with out evidence. It is not really a hypothesis if you can't justify it either.

This is the basis of science. The ancient Greek word eidein covers this. Intellectual knowledge. From this we get the English word idea.

Faith is the provence of gnosis. Spiritual knowledge. You just "know it is so" in your "gut" in your "soul". That is not science. Just as science is not faith.

I do not subscribe to the (something from nothing) hypothesis and I'm certain no man made anthropomorphic deity exist, let alone caused our universe to come into being.

The universe can be traced back to one single event, the event horizon, before the expansion, before the big bang. We see this event as all the universe compressed into something the size of an atom beyond the Planck scale. As we observe the cosmic background radiation we see the event horizon scaled up to encompass the entire known universe.

It's at these scales the big (theory of special relativity) and the small (Quantum mechanics) we find this barrier the Planck scale, where our math's break down. The two theories are not mutually exclusive and have yet to be joined into one unified theory.

I believe the big and the small are one in the same. If you could zoom outside our universe, it would be infinitely small and you would find yourself looking at a collapsing star in a universe full of stars and galaxies. Zoom down to the Planck scale and you would discover more of the same. The universe and everything in it, is fractal and as such.. infinite.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.

There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).

But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.

Share with us one fact that cannot be verified via the scientific method.

Well, aside from the fields of Philosophy, Theology, History, Language and the Arts, I would probably stick to things assumed to be science:

Psychology has much that the scientific method is useless to probe due to the complexity and irrationality of the subjects.

Similarly, many components of Evolution remain outside of the application of full scientific method.

But if you are wanting very specific things, perhaps the superluminal inflation of the early universe after the Big Bang. whiich breaks all the rules of physics, had no observer, is not possible to experiment upon and is based upon entirely circumstantial evidence. Or perhaps, the Big Bang itself is also outside the scientific method to test.

Or in biology, when photosynthesis occurs, the energy produced must travel from photoreceptor to the packager that builds the ATP molecules. As they are no valence, van der waals, nuclear or electrostatic forces giving a 'direction' to the transfer, it should propagate only by Brownian Motion and therefore be highly inefficient. It isn't, it seems to take a quantum optimum path and no-one has a clue why. Not even any theory. Of course, this does not preclude it coming under the remit of science at a future date but at present, science has no answers to this observation. As we can't formulate any theory, we can't we experiment by taking an alternate case and proving one theory over another. It just isn't testable.

The scientific method can be applied to all of these questions. But I'm not seeing any facts that can't be verified.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.

There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).

But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.

Share with us one fact that cannot be verified via the scientific method.

Well, aside from the fields of Philosophy, Theology, History, Language and the Arts, I would probably stick to things assumed to be science:

Psychology has much that the scientific method is useless to probe due to the complexity and irrationality of the subjects.

Similarly, many components of Evolution remain outside of the application of full scientific method.

But if you are wanting very specific things, perhaps the superluminal inflation of the early universe after the Big Bang. whiich breaks all the rules of physics, had no observer, is not possible to experiment upon and is based upon entirely circumstantial evidence. Or perhaps, the Big Bang itself is also outside the scientific method to test.

Or in biology, when photosynthesis occurs, the energy produced must travel from photoreceptor to the packager that builds the ATP molecules. As they are no valence, van der waals, nuclear or electrostatic forces giving a 'direction' to the transfer, it should propagate only by Brownian Motion and therefore be highly inefficient. It isn't, it seems to take a quantum optimum path and no-one has a clue why. Not even any theory. Of course, this does not preclude it coming under the remit of science at a future date but at present, science has no answers to this observation. As we can't formulate any theory, we can't we experiment by taking an alternate case and proving one theory over another. It just isn't testable.

The scientific method can be applied to all of these questions. But I'm not seeing any facts that can't be verified.

Then please explain the specifics of the steps with which one would apply the scientific method to any one of them.

Or consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. These are considered facts, fundamental, even, are they not? Please provide the case which falsifies one of them, not something general, some specific theory that is supported by observational data and can be tested.

Or the geometry of Euclid which is the virtual opposite of Reinmanian geometry. Shouldn't we be able to apply scientific method and determine which is the true case and which is false. We can't, despite their opposing and fundamental nature, science cannot test them and disprove one or the other. Science is provably limited in what it can determine.

If you choose not to look, you will never see and it doesn't prove your case.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Then please explain the specifics of the steps with which one would apply the scientific method to any one of them.

Or consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. These are considered facts, fundamental, even, are they not?

This is actually a very common misunderstanding. Scientific Laws are able to be broken. They are not designed to be absolute. They are merely the resulting conclusion of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.

Really it's no different than any other part of Science. If an observation is made that 'breaks' the previous conclusion then that previous conclusion is scrapped and a new, more accurate conclusion is formed.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please provide the case which falsifies one of them, not something general, some specific theory that is supported by observational data and can be tested.

I'm not sure you are able to accept such evidence. From your writing it seems as though you believe "observation" means "Being there to witness it first hand". Scientific observation doesn't require subjective observation because objective observation is far more accurate.

"But if you are wanting very specific things, perhaps the "Superluminal Inflation" of the early universe after the Big Bang, which breaks all the rules of physics, had no observer, is not possible to experiment upon and is based upon entirely circumstantial and possibly misapplied evidence. "
~ chr0naut

Could you clarify what you mean by "observational data" just so we know we're on the same page?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Most of your response made little to no sense at all which is why I'm ignoring it. You seem to just ramble on about a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with anything. But it was kinda interesting to read it and try and figure out what you were talking about.

Yeah, you are great Mojo....

Yeah??? Well thanks. I like the sound of that.

To me, its foolish

You should leave your christian teachings to christians
NOWHERE in the bible are people who take their own lives condemned to hell, nowhere, to say so is a lie

What bothers me is you know you dont know, you know you havnt studied christianity, you even have to ask the wife for an opinion, even then you are still arrogant enough to not admit you dont really know
You have to use a sects doctrine to justify your answer, a sect thats irrelevant to me, a sect that all dont believe what you demand I believe you are saying

Foolishness, preaching catholicism as christianity and not even a catholic or christian

You keep saying that and yet I keep showing you that I know much more than your think I know. Besides that, I'm not trying to get anyone to believe anything I'm saying. I was simply answering a question that you asked which was where anyone would get the idea that suicide sent you to hell. So I answered it and even said that "this is where I heard it from". I didn't say for a fact or as some authority that the idea must have come from "such and such ideology". I said it probably came from "here" and I heard it from "this person".

I don't care if you believe the truth of it either. I certainly don't believe it. Just like I don't believe most of your or other Judeo-Christian Mythology. Again, I was just telling you where I heard others tell me the same idea. I don't know why you think I'm trying to convince you of anything or get anyone to believe they are going to hell for committing suicide. I don't even believe that myself so why would I want to convince anyone else of it. It's BS as far as I'm concerned. I was just trying to help answer your question. Big mistake on my part apparently because you already know everything about everything and don't want anyone else say anything. So I'll try and not make that mistake in the future. Or I might just talk endlessly just to annoy the hell out of you, I'm not sure just yet.

originally posted by: Astyanax

Very simple and very sensible, if you believe in that kind of thing.

A lot of people on this site belong to the Church of Troll, don’t you find?

I don't believe in that kind of thing personally.

And yes I seem to have come across of few of them "Church Trolls" you speak of now and then.

a reply to: mOjOm

Well please show me in the bible where people who take their own lives are condemned to hell
It cant be any simpler than that
It is foolishness, preaching catholicism as christianity and not even a catholic or christian

originally posted by: mOjOm

It's what many Christians will tell you. I've had them tell me the same too. Not all of them will say that but many of them do.

I've even been told that committing suicide is the one unforgivable sin that will automatically send you to hell. I don't remember the exact reasoning for it now but it's supposed to be like the ultimate "no no" as far as God is concerned.

I dont care what many say, I am interested in evidence not assumption, you are assuming because "others" have told you
If you believed everything others told you, then your head would be a mess
Why do you believe this suicide thing about christianity, what others tell you about christianity

I just dont get it at all...

and if you dont believe it why are you arguing doctrine

You are showing me what Aquinas and a few Popes have said, so what, its not biblical, its extra biblical
Why do you say its supposed to be the ULTIMATE no no, based on what, Aquinas, popes, what are they to the Word of God


edit#
I dont know of anyone who has committed suicide but what you are saying, repeating, encouraging is unreasoned
If their are people who have friends family who have, who read this, you are encouraging them to believe, to consider their friends family are condemned. You dont know that, neither does Aquinas or any in the Catholic church

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.

There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).

But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.

Share with us one fact that cannot be verified via the scientific method.

Well, aside from the fields of Philosophy, Theology, History, Language and the Arts, I would probably stick to things assumed to be science:

Psychology has much that the scientific method is useless to probe due to the complexity and irrationality of the subjects.

Similarly, many components of Evolution remain outside of the application of full scientific method.

But if you are wanting very specific things, perhaps the superluminal inflation of the early universe after the Big Bang. whiich breaks all the rules of physics, had no observer, is not possible to experiment upon and is based upon entirely circumstantial evidence. Or perhaps, the Big Bang itself is also outside the scientific method to test.

Or in biology, when photosynthesis occurs, the energy produced must travel from photoreceptor to the packager that builds the ATP molecules. As they are no valence, van der waals, nuclear or electrostatic forces giving a 'direction' to the transfer, it should propagate only by Brownian Motion and therefore be highly inefficient. It isn't, it seems to take a quantum optimum path and no-one has a clue why. Not even any theory. Of course, this does not preclude it coming under the remit of science at a future date but at present, science has no answers to this observation. As we can't formulate any theory, we can't we experiment by taking an alternate case and proving one theory over another. It just isn't testable.

The scientific method can be applied to all of these questions. But I'm not seeing any facts that can't be verified.

Then please explain the specifics of the steps with which one would apply the scientific method to any one of them.

Or consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. These are considered facts, fundamental, even, are they not? Please provide the case which falsifies one of them, not something general, some specific theory that is supported by observational data and can be tested.

Or the geometry of Euclid which is the virtual opposite of Reinmanian geometry. Shouldn't we be able to apply scientific method and determine which is the true case and which is false. We can't, despite their opposing and fundamental nature, science cannot test them and disprove one or the other. Science is provably limited in what it can determine.

If you choose not to look, you will never see and it doesn't prove your case.

The laws of thermodynamics are the result of reproducible data from repeatable test. The same goes for geometry. Let's not get into the game of trying to use science to disprove what science has already proven in order to prove that science is unreliable. Science gave us penicillin when God gave us cancer. So yeah the methods and tools of science are imperfect and incomplete, but at least it can tell us the difference between penicillin and snake oil.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Just curious! What is your idea of hell? More to the point. Do you believe it is a place (for humans) of eternal torture or everlasting destruction (of the soul)?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just curious! What is your idea of hell? More to the point. Do you believe it is a place (for humans) of eternal torture or everlasting destruction (of the soul)?

Hell
Separation from God, eventual total annihilation, nothing left, no eternal soul
There were two trees in the garden, one was knowledge the other of life

www.gotquestions.org...

But thats a best guess and a heresy to many, especially catholics

a reply to: introvert

That's pretty much how I look at it, as far as there being an epiphany between science and faith.

I was, once upon a time, a fence sitter, as well. No longer.

If we come from nothing and go back to nothing...that makes life infinitely more precious and rare.

a reply to: mOjOm

You keep saying that and yet I keep showing you that I know much more than you think I know.

I, too, used to believe I could get ignorant people to accept their ignorance.

Doesn’t work all that well, does it?

If you explain an intelligent person’s error to them without being offensive about it, they’ll usually accept what you say. But you can’t do that to the stupid, especially stupid people who have an emotional investment in their ignorance. They will tell you your learning is just an opinion, and theirs is as good as yours or better.

This I learned on Above Top Secret. See, it is good for something after all.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Well please show me in the bible where people who take their own lives are condemned to hell
It cant be any simpler than that
It is foolishness, preaching catholicism as christianity and not even a catholic or christian

You're stuck on repeat man. I'm not going to explain it again. I'm not preaching anything. I'm through talking in circles with you. I'm starting to think you don't have a grasp of the language because you're not even understanding anything I've told you and nobody is that dense. Therefore it must be a language thing I'm guessing.

I dont care what many say, I am interested in evidence not assumption, you are assuming because "others" have told you
If you believed everything others told you, then your head would be a mess
Why do you believe this suicide thing about christianity, what others tell you about christianity

I just dont get it at all...

and if you dont believe it why are you arguing doctrine

Then don't care. I don't care if you don't care. I'm not arguing any doctrine either. Nor do I believe any Religious doctrine.

You are showing me what Aquinas and a few Popes have said, so what, its not biblical, its extra biblical
Why do you say its supposed to be the ULTIMATE no no, based on what, Aquinas, popes, what are they to the Word of God
edit#
I dont know of anyone who has committed suicide but what you are saying, repeating, encouraging is unreasoned
If their are people who have friends family who have, who read this, you are encouraging them to believe, to consider their friends family are condemned. You dont know that, neither does Aquinas or any in the Catholic church

I'm not encouraging anything and you're being ridiculous. I'm done here. Forget the whole conversation. Or don't. I don't really care anymore. You're just wasting both of our time now.

Good luck to you.

a reply to: Raggedyman

More than you deserve, but:

1. The Greek Orthodox Church is opposed to suicide in any form and regards it as a grievous sin.

2. Lutherans: ‘As a church we affirm that deliberately destroying life created in the image of God is contrary to our Christian conscience.’

3. Anglicans: the Church of England can never soften its line on euthanasia. Writing in The Times, Dr Williams says that assisted dying involves other people in an act of suicide and suggests that the recognition of a legal right to assisted dying could entail a responsibility on others to kill.

4. Catholics: The Roman Catholic Church remains firmly opposed to both suicide and euthanasia as moral options.

Source

Among them, those four congregations account for roughly 2.1 billion of the world’s 2.2 billion Christians.

And you expect us to care about your opinion?

I'm kinda torn between two conclusions...

Either there's not much to it, you're there, you live, you're gone, that's it. Make the best of it while you got it, even if you're scraping by.

The alternate is there's some reason. If there's a being with infinite knowing, etc. Then there's likely a chance for infinite boredom. At some point, it'd use it's power to shatter it's own mind and knowledge. Thus "the game", different roles (rolls?) and stats each time consciousness goes around. In which case considering the bigger scheme we're actually one and the same, thus there's honestly not much point in bowing down to something that we are already. Holographic facets of one and the same. But yeat a game, because there isn't too much of a better reason.

I guess that puts me in the agnostic atheist group?

Either way, I suspect it's best for the live & let live, no harm no foul attitude towards life. Of course that doesn't mean I'd let somebody walk all over me either. In which case all bets would be off, but you'd have to work in order to go there.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
So Atheists...


Let me ask a few thought exerciser questions here....?


I'm a person of Faith. No, I don't believe everything written in the Good Book, lock stock and barrel literally. But, I'm a man of Faith in that as far as I'm concerned there is a supreme being, entity, Great spirit, Master builder...etc etc etc. However one cares to relate or describe it. No, I have chosen a very long time ago never to push my beliefs on others. I'm open to discuss but never attempt to force my beliefs down others throats. I respect those who believe otherwise.

Now, Scientifically speaking, of course.

Since there is no after life, and "We" were just the result of some random cosmic genetic lottery. Are you comfortable with the concept that our consciousness came from nothing before we were born and that after our Deaths we will simply blink out and nothing more?

If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?

You are after all a 'Higher Life form" with that regards. Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?

If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?

I'm an atheist and believe our spirits live eternally. I believe (yes, I believe and cannot prove this. Call it faith if you must) that WE are self-existent and eternal and that we have no need of a creator because we created this universe and an infinite number of others ourselves. There's now scientific evidence that the "big bang" never actually occurred and that the universe has always existed. I would add to that by saying "just like us." When we die, we don't die but simply transition to another form of existence. Evolution is as baseless as the belief that we were created by a god. It's a faith which brands those who don't "believe" as unscientific morons but is devoid of actual EVIDENCE. I also believe that, if I'm wrong about the non-existence of a god, then he/she/it will not give two licks about what I believe because he/she/it simply doesn't need validation and has transcended ego.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Raggedyman

More than you deserve, but:

1. The Greek Orthodox Church is opposed to suicide in any form and regards it as a grievous sin.

2. Lutherans: ‘As a church we affirm that deliberately destroying life created in the image of God is contrary to our Christian conscience.’

3. Anglicans: the Church of England can never soften its line on euthanasia. Writing in The Times, Dr Williams says that assisted dying involves other people in an act of suicide and suggests that the recognition of a legal right to assisted dying could entail a responsibility on others to kill.

4. Catholics: The Roman Catholic Church remains firmly opposed to both suicide and euthanasia as moral options.

Source

Among them, those four congregations account for roughly 2.1 billion of the world’s 2.2 billion Christians.

And you expect us to care about your opinion?

I have asked for evidence not your assumptions

I am not Greek or othodox, not catholic or believe in the Papacy
I asked for biblical evidence not assumption
Can you differentiate the two ?

I agree with Lutherans
Q. What is the LCMS stand on suicide? If a person commits suicide, can his/her funeral be held in the church? Does the LCMS believe that the person is condemned to hell since after suicide there is no way to ask for forgiveness?

A. The Synod does not have an official position regarding the eternal state of individuals who have committed suicide, though theologians of the Synod have commented from time to time on pastoral questions that often arise in such cases.
www.atruechurch.info...

and the Anglicans

"For some Christian believers, particularly those with a Roman Catholic upbringing, there is a conviction that suicide is an unforgivable sin. The logic is that this must be a sin that does not allow the possibility of confession and therefore forgiveness. I want to say that conviction, however sincerely it may be felt, is just wrong. The bible is very clear that our forgiveness does not depend on us confessing every sin we ever commit and asking God to forgive us for it. That would be a full time job. There would be sins we’d do that we wouldn’t realise were sins. There’d be sins we knew were sins we’d forget to. The bible never encourages us to anxiously keep trying to confess enough so that God is forced to forgive us. Instead we are encouraged to trust ourselves to the one who is gracious and compassionate. Forgiveness does not depend on my worthiness. If it did, it wouldn’t be forgiveness. All we need to contribute is the sin. God is the one who graciously forgives. What counts is trusting him to do that, and not trying to achieve it by ourselves."

sydneyanglicans.net...

So thanks, just no thanks