Aaron, we have scoring systems for bliss too. And pain. They may not be as precise as the scoring systems for bowling, but we have them. (Indeed, the ones for pain have been the basis for quite a bit of scientific study.)

Again, your argument can at most show that we don't have a FULLY ACCURATE frame of reference. But we don't have a fully accurate frame of reference for anything we haven't experienced. I don't have a fully accurate frame of reference for what it feels like to bowl a 300 game. My frame of reference may be more precise than my frame of reference for bliss, but it's not completely precise.

A "frame of reference" isn't an on / off thing. It's a device for comparing the known to the unknown. We have such devices with respect to bliss. The most you can say is that they aren't fully accurate devices; but no such device is.

You're not addressing the issue of "perfect" pain. Your entire position is premised on this concept, and you've reiterated that "perfection" is a central component of your position.

The things you are attempting to cite here do not speak to the concept of "perfect" pain, so I don't know why you think it's relevant.

Aaron, I am not addressing "perfect" pain because it has nothing to do with the claimed experiences in heaven.

Unfortunately, "perfection" is central to your claim, so you need to provide *SOMETHING* that explains what you're saying. Otherwise, you're full of empty gibberish.

I'll repeat again that your original thesis was essentially "perfect isn't perfect." (Perfect means it cannot be improved, then it's lacking in something -- hence it's not perfect.) So you have yet to actually discuss what "perfection" really is. If you don't want to discuss "perfect pain" that's fine. But you must provide something more than "we can understand perfect bliss because we can understand bliss" because that's clearly false.

This whole frame of reference angle is BS. Its like claiming a 12 year old virgin has an idea of what it is like to make love to a woman because he has the experience of having masterbated to pictures of Lilly. To understand what it is like to make love to a woman...you have to have made love to a woman. Too understand what heavenly bliss is like you have to have experienced heavenly bliss.

Stu, actually masturbation DOES convey some information as to what intercourse is like.

I should say one other thing about this. Remember that "perfect bliss" is a big part of the sales pitch of religion. If humans REALLY have no frame of reference for what this is like, then it has no meaning to humans and there's no reason to accept Jesus or obey God's laws.

The entire theology requires that humans have some frame of reference so they can understand that heaven is worth going to.

Not really... It's the "sales pitch" of the article, which it then proceeds to discard (by arguing that perfect isn't perfect).

There's a distinction between the "experiential frame of reference" (which is what you're trying to argue) and the "conceptual frame of reference" (which you argued from the beginning, but have since abandoned).

Until you can consistently frame your position, I don't think you'll be able to meaningfully advance your argument.

If the framework is that heaven is simply "better" than what is here, then that would be sufficient.

Aaron, that's in no way sufficient.

If I am thinking of purchasing a car, and salesman 1 says "this car is 'better' than what you have", while salesman 2 says "this car accelerates faster and gets better mileage and has more room than what you have", salesman 2 has given men a reason to purchase the car, whereas salesman 1 has not.

What's happening here is religious people are asking to define heaven at a level of generality where the statements about it are nothing more than meaningless puffery. Unless heaven can actually be established to be worthwhile in some way that humans can actually understand and relate to, God is operating on the level of salesman 1. She has given us no reason to buy the car.

And there's no difference, for this purpose, between "conceptual" and "experiential" frames of reference. To avoid the "heaven is awful" problem, you need heaven to have no frame of reference at all.

This is the only point you've made in this thread that has any merit.

And how does this fit into your argument about "perfect" bliss? #2 is not trying to sell you a "perfect" car. He is simply selling you "better" cars (based on one of multiple types of measure). You still have yet to meaningfully describe your terms (ie, "perfect"), so it's impossible to know what you're trying to argue now.

You say that there's "no difference" yet you cannot seem to argue either case effectively, and both cases are being argued differently. It seems to me that there's a huge difference.