This is to point out flaws and mistake in “Is Hell Endothermic or Exothermic?” This was written by Mitch Davis. He came across this question. He managed to get it published on the Internet, and you can see it here.
He gave me permission to prove him wrong, which I will do so. It is important to note that Mitch questions the existence of Heaven and Hell in his first paragraph, which is good, and it also proves he is not religious.
Mitch Davis started first by trying to work out how large hell was in terms of size. This would be the incorrect first step.
Firstly, he should have worked out which Hell he was talking about. As stated above, Mitch Davis does not have a religion, and if he does, it does not have “Heaven-Hell” relations. So he was basically basing his work on biased personifications of Hell, like the ones pictured in many films, comics and shows.
Their idea of Hell is a flaming cesspool of naked people being tortured and punished by little red gremlins. This is wrong and no religion has something as far-fetched as this. Some religions don't even have a Hell. I believe he was basing his work on a biased and exaggerated version of the “The Lake of Fire”, or the “Spiritual” Hell.
If he was doing the first option, then he is very wrong to call it Hell. The Lake of Fire is a lake of burning sulfur that appears during Armageddon to punish Satan and his followers. If he was talking about “Spiritual” Hell, then I will be able to point out even more faults in his theory.
Next, he cleverly hypothesizes that Hell keeps on expanding. But if he is using “Spiritual” Hell, then he should know that the laws of science don't apply to spiritual place. Heaven and Hell are supposed to be on a different spiritual plane, and are intangible and immaterial, so they wouldn't really have any area anyway.
Secondly, he uses another biased personification, of a soul. A soul is another intangible and immaterial thing, so it would not have any body mass (so they can't take up space), and they would not have any shape.
Also, Mitch uses the biased Hell personification again, thinking that there would be punishment for all the wrongdoers. In some religions, Hell doesn't have whipping and torture and has other mental punishments. Most of these types of Hells are a black abyss which is so dark you can't see yourself, and they stay there for all eternity. Also, laws of science don't apply, so there's no kinetic energy or body heat, since they don't even have a body.
Another clue that gives the image he is talking about the Christian “Spiritual” Hell, he specifically refers to Christianity in Paragraph 3.
Note: To talk about the falsities in Paragraph 3, I would have to talk about religion, differences and God now, but that will be too complicated for everyone to understand so I'll just skip to the last writings of Mitch Davis.
He talks more about Hell expanding, which I have already explained. He then lists two possibilities, which can't be right because of his flawed research. Why he lists only two possibilities when there are three, I do not know. Here are the two possibilities he listed:
“1: If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than that of which the rate of souls entering Hell, which it probably is, then the temperature will increase until all Hell breaks loose. (Thanks, Cliché Finder)
2: If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than that of which the rate of souls are entering Hell, then Hell is going to cool down until Hell freezes over. (That was a good one.)”
The one he omitted was:
3: Hell expanded at the same rate as the rate of which souls entering Hell, then Hell would stay the same.
He then talks about how God built Earth in a week. This is false too. In the Bible, God reputedly built Heaven and Earth in six days, and had a rest on the last day. Also, Satan is not, as most people believe, the yang to God's yin, but an angel who left heaven.
