impossible paradoxes of faith

[ViaCrucis]

are you saying that if we don't discuss what is meant by hell, that the question is meaningless?

hell obviously doesn't exist, and neither does heaven. However, in the context of the question, hell and heaven exist. Hell is not nice, heaven is nice. That's all that is needed for the question to stand.

Your response to my point indicated certain presuppositions concerning the nature of Hell, which is precisely why I believe having a conception of Hell is necessary for this particular discussion.

Your supposition is found in the basic though of "God allows some to go to Hell", thus presenting it as argument against universal mercy. Namely, that Hell is something we go to, a terrible place of something-or-other. If, on the other hand, Hell is a state or condition of a person then the amount of mercy extended, however freely, changes things.

Following my example of children making poor choices, you could certainly lobotomize your child to keep them from self-destroying themselves; but that's not particularly merciful. On the other hand, however, you provide a place to live for them, feed them, care for them, love them and protect them, that is kind and merciful--even if they despise you for it.

If Hell is just that, the over-abundance of God's loving kindness, in which those in His midst retract angrily and grumblingly against such kindness how is that not merciful? God could certainly prevent such people from existing--but is that a better option? God could simply destroy them, but again, that doesn't seem particularly good or merciful. God could lobotomize them (so to speak) such that their rational personhood is destroyed, but again, this doesn't seem like a particularly fantastic option. Now on the other hand, God can continue to love people forever, embracing them in His divine mercy and kindness, and for some this is experienced as Hell, that hardly seems unmerciful.

Again, this is precisely why I thought spending some time on the concept of Hell was crucial to the conversation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dr truth]

I have learned lots about faith from this experience, thank you all for your contributions. Most of you have tried to change the question before answering it. Like I said in the OP, if the assumptions don't apply to your concept of god, then ignore the question. That didn't stop most of you from trying to change the question, but it had the unexpected benefit that I learned some more things about what people think god can and can't do. Some of you tried to answer the question as it stands but necessarily in these cases, the answer included something like "which is beyond man's comprehension and can't be understood by logic". So really those are not answers but impassioned demonstrations of the nature of faith, believing in spite of reasons it can't possibly be true in any logical sense of the word.


Here is a brief summary of what I have learned:

1. Some people's concept of god is that god is not omniscient.

Many of you have asserted that god does not know the outcomes of our choices before we make them, or knows all possible outcomes but not the actual outcomes in advance.

2. Some people's concept of god is that god's love and/or mercy is conditional.

Many of you have asserted that god is merciful but only to those he saves. Those who he creates knowing they will go to hell do not receive his mercy on the day of judgment, but his wrath.

3. I have learned some new (to me) paradoxes of faith:

a. If hell is a place where people are separated from god, then god can't be omnipresent. If god is omnipresent then hell can't be a place where people are separated from god.

b. God can't be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. If he's omniscient, he knows every outcome in the history of the universe right at the start. Therefore, he can't change any outcome at all, because if he changes an outcome, then he didn't know what the outcome was and was therefore not omniscient. If god can't change any outcomes, he can't change any part of his plan, he is not omnipotent. God became effectively impotent the moment he became omniscient. At what point in creation did he become omniscient? At that moment, he lost his omnipotence.


In summary, the best solution to the paradox that allows the possibility of an omniscient, loving, merciful god who grants free will, is to abandon the idea of hell altogether, as one responder almost did when he said "hell is just the end of an unsaved person's existence". God could be omniscient, loving and merciful if he only creates people who will go to heaven. The only adjustment to faith that is required if we abandon the idea of hell is to dismiss the Christian view that the only way to the father is through Jesus. This rather inconvenient line of the Bible makes it abundantly clear that there is a heaven, and if so, as a matter of necessity, there must be a corresponding place that is not heaven, which you can call anything you like I suppose but is commonly called hell. However, if we want an omniscient, loving, merciful god and free will, then we must at the very least admit that such a god can only exist if every person goes to heaven after death. God could not permit a single soul into hell and be merciful. So, why has nobody suggested this simple answer to the paradox? It must be that the threat of hell is a requirement of religion, because if everybody goes to heaven regardless, then nobody has any compelling reason to worship god. Clearly, if a religion did not assert the existence of hell, then nobody would need to join the religion in the first place and the religion would have a very small congregation of people who worship god for reasons other than their desire to go to heaven.

I feel satisfied that we have gone as far as we can in the discussion and again would like to thank you all for contributing to helping me understand faith.

 

[ebia]

1. Some people's concept of god is that god is not omniscient.

Many of you have asserted that god does not know the outcomes of our choices before we make them, or knows all possible outcomes but not the actual outcomes in advance.

There's an extra distinction to be made.
Some say that God cannot know everything in advance.
Others that God chooses not to, so that his relationship with his creation can be a genuine relationship.

In summary, the best solution to the paradox that allows the possibility of an omniscient, loving, merciful god who grants free will, is to abandon the idea of hell altogether, as one responder almost did when he said "hell is just the end of an unsaved person's existence". God could be omniscient, loving and merciful if he only creates people who will go to heaven. The only adjustment to faith that is required if we abandon the idea of hell is to dismiss the Christian view that the only way to the father is through Jesus. This rather inconvenient line of the Bible makes it abundantly clear that there is a heaven, and if so, as a matter of necessity, there must be a corresponding place that is not heaven, which you can call anything you like I suppose but is commonly called hell. However, if we want an omniscient, loving, merciful god and free will, then we must at the very least admit that such a god can only exist if every person goes to heaven after death. God could not permit a single soul into hell and be merciful. So, why has nobody suggested this simple answer to the paradox?

Maybe because CF rules do not allow that opinion to be expressed?

It must be that the threat of hell is a requirement of religion, because if everybody goes to heaven regardless, then nobody has any compelling reason to worship god. Clearly, if a religion did not assert the existence of hell, then nobody would need to join the religion in the first place and the religion would have a very small congregation of people who worship god for reasons other than their desire to go to heaven.

That makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions about Christianity we can spend days unpacking.

I

 

[food4thought]

I have learned lots about faith from this experience, thank you all for your contributions. Most of you have tried to change the question before answering it. Like I said in the OP, if the assumptions don't apply to your concept of god, then ignore the question. That didn't stop most of you from trying to change the question, but it had the unexpected benefit that I learned some more things about what people think god can and can't do. Some of you tried to answer the question as it stands but necessarily in these cases, the answer included something like "which is beyond man's comprehension and can't be understood by logic". So really those are not answers but impassioned demonstrations of the nature of faith, believing in spite of reasons it can't possibly be true in any logical sense of the word.


Here is a brief summary of what I have learned:

1. Some people's concept of god is that god is not omniscient.

Many of you have asserted that god does not know the outcomes of our choices before we make them, or knows all possible outcomes but not the actual outcomes in advance.

2. Some people's concept of god is that god's love and/or mercy is conditional.

Many of you have asserted that god is merciful but only to those he saves. Those who he creates knowing they will go to hell do not receive his mercy on the day of judgment, but his wrath.

3. I have learned some new (to me) paradoxes of faith:

a. If hell is a place where people are separated from god, then god can't be omnipresent. If god is omnipresent then hell can't be a place where people are separated from god.

b. God can't be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. If he's omniscient, he knows every outcome in the history of the universe right at the start. Therefore, he can't change any outcome at all, because if he changes an outcome, then he didn't know what the outcome was and was therefore not omniscient. If god can't change any outcomes, he can't change any part of his plan, he is not omnipotent. God became effectively impotent the moment he became omniscient. At what point in creation did he become omniscient? At that moment, he lost his omnipotence.


In summary, the best solution to the paradox that allows the possibility of an omniscient, loving, merciful god who grants free will, is to abandon the idea of hell altogether, as one responder almost did when he said "hell is just the end of an unsaved person's existence". God could be omniscient, loving and merciful if he only creates people who will go to heaven. The only adjustment to faith that is required if we abandon the idea of hell is to dismiss the Christian view that the only way to the father is through Jesus. This rather inconvenient line of the Bible makes it abundantly clear that there is a heaven, and if so, as a matter of necessity, there must be a corresponding place that is not heaven, which you can call anything you like I suppose but is commonly called hell. However, if we want an omniscient, loving, merciful god and free will, then we must at the very least admit that such a god can only exist if every person goes to heaven after death. God could not permit a single soul into hell and be merciful. So, why has nobody suggested this simple answer to the paradox? It must be that the threat of hell is a requirement of religion, because if everybody goes to heaven regardless, then nobody has any compelling reason to worship god. Clearly, if a religion did not assert the existence of hell, then nobody would need to join the religion in the first place and the religion would have a very small congregation of people who worship god for reasons other than their desire to go to heaven.

I feel satisfied that we have gone as far as we can in the discussion and again would like to thank you all for contributing to helping me understand faith.

You seem quite determined to believe what you believe about God... that he does not exist. I understand that your reason has lead you to atheism, and that is your choice, but I wish you would at least look at the faultiness of your original question.

You assume that the attributes of God you proposed are the only ones relevant to the discussion. God's justice, righteousness, and holiness also play their part in the existance of hell. Just because God is mercifull, it does not follow that He is INFINITELY mercifull. His mercy has limits set by His other attributes of holiness, righteousness, and justice. His righteousness sets an incredibly high standard for right and wrong. His holiness demonstrates that He is, in essence, not like man but set apart and different. Finally, His justice demands that every crime receive a just penalty. That phrase "just penalty" is where the definition of hell becomes relevant, in case you were wondering. So up against His desire to be mercifull towards His creations He also has these other attributes that limit that mercy. He would not be just if He allowed all the evil, evil that our free will allows us to bring into the world, to go unpunished. He would not be righteous if He allowed His mercy to overlook the evil done, would He?

So I accept that you reject my earlier post as being an answer to your question... I just hope you realize that you set the framework of the question in such a way as to not get good answers, because the question itself sets limits on God that are not there in the real Theistic God.

So we come back around to the original question: Why did God create people He knew would end up in hell? The answer, ultimately, is that we are not given the information to know why God felt it was necessary to create people He knows will end up in hell. BUT IT IS NOT A PARADOX in the sense I believe you to mean it (definition 2 listed below), but it is a paradox by definition 1 below.

par·a·dox

   /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA
noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.




There is no inherent contradiction here, only something that seems contradictory on the surface but expresses a truth we cannot logically deduce because we do not have all the information. If we could see the end result of all possible eternities future, we might be able to answer this question. Sadly, we cannot. God can, if He chooses to... why not ask Him in humble prayer?

 

[aiki]

He also creates people who go to heaven. Why does this seem not to be a factor in your questions? it makes perfect sense that god is loving and merciful to those he creates who go to heaven. That isn't a paradox. This thread is about the paradoxes of faith, not the non-paradoxes.

So, where, then, is the paradox you say exists? If you can recognize that God is merciful in creating people He knows will go to heaven, then your paradox seems to me to dissolve.

God is most certainly merciful.

....

THe biblical God is not all-merciful.
​

so which is it then? He can't be both merciful and not merciful can he?

Sure He can. Why not? As I explained in my last post, God is not merciful at the expense of every other aspect of His nature. He is merciful as it is appropriate to be so and a judge and punisher of the wicked when it is not. Where's the paradox?

The Bible teaches that God persistently extends mercy to humanity, but human beings choose not to avail themselves of His mercy. God mercifully holds out to all the gift of salvation but many choose to reject His gift. He knew in advance that many would do so, but has made a world where the maximum number of those who would choose His gift do so. I see in this much love and mercy, not the paradox you are trying to propose.

mer·cy/ˈmərsē/
Noun:
Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.

God isn't merciful if he is wrathful to anybody.

This doesn't make any sense. You've acknowledged yourself that, to those who do go to heaven, God is merciful. How, then, can you assert that, because He acts to judge and punish those who reject His mercy, He is not merciful at all?

God can't be merciful and wrathful. Another paradox of faith. Thank you!

Sorry, but there is no paradox here. Are you always happy? By your logic, if you are not happy all the time, you have never been happy. This isn't so, however, is it? You are indeed happy at times (I assume) even if this isn't the case at every moment.

Selah.

 

[GrayAngel]

3. I have learned some new (to me) paradoxes of faith:

a. If hell is a place where people are separated from god, then god can't be omnipresent. If god is omnipresent then hell can't be a place where people are separated from god.

This isn't literal separation we're talking about. Sin has separated us from God here on Earth, but God is still physically present. It's spiritual separation. You know how two people can live together and still feel alone? Sometimes married couples say that they "feel distant from one another" despite sharing the same house and bed. That's what it's like between us and God. Our sin "separates" us from God, and Hell is a continuation of that separation.

b. God can't be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. If he's omniscient, he knows every outcome in the history of the universe right at the start. Therefore, he can't change any outcome at all, because if he changes an outcome, then he didn't know what the outcome was and was therefore not omniscient. If god can't change any outcomes, he can't change any part of his plan, he is not omnipotent. God became effectively impotent the moment he became omniscient. At what point in creation did he become omniscient? At that moment, he lost his omnipotence.

Or maybe He knows everything and molded history Himself? You're trying too hard to debunk this, and it's not working. God doesn't live in a moment in time like we do. He molded it according to His will and He knew immediately its outcome, and to Him this was all in an instant.

If it helps, you can try to simplify it in terms of time. God knew all possible universes, and He made one of them a reality. Knowing history doesn't mean one is too weak to stop it. On the contrary, God's omniscience is part of His omnipotence. Knowing things ahead of time, having perfect understanding of how the world works (since He's the one who designed it) allows Him to mold history as He sees fit.

 

[JonahGirl]

There are some serious misrepresentations of people like me who have no evidence of god in your statement, which is an attack on the character of atheists. It is easy to deal with.

I am repelled by god. The bible makes it clear to me that god is a nasty piece of work. Example: Noah. Killing every living creature on earth and starting again is global genocide with unjustified cruelty to the animals (except the fish of course) who were killed for no reason at all. My repulsion for god is not the result of sin, hatred or any emotion, but merely the result of reading about the horrible things he does to people and animals in the bible. Love, goodness and kindness make me happy when both giving and receiving them. Belief in god is not a requirement to be a loving kind good person.



The precise definition of hell doesn't affect the question. So long as we can agree that heaven is supposed to be good and hell is supposed to be bad, then the question makes sense enough to be answered.

So JonahGirl, "hell is heaven for those who don't follow god, therefore god is loving and merciful". By your logic, an evil person who rejects god will go to heaven, because if somebody really does enjoy hell then it isn't hell, it's heaven. So you have redefined hell in order to solve the paradox, but unfortunately your clever trick has been revealed. Nice try.

I am sorry. I won't declare who should go to heaven or hell, be they athiests or anything else. I also don't believe that people who don't accept God are essentially bad people. If I made the determination no one would go... I was merely trying to explain, if anyone does, why I thought that would be.

Please consider my idea that the Bible was written or transcribed by people. That means that people filtered what was in the Bible, that people could have "put words in God's mouth." There is no way to experience God without having someone else's or your own thoughts imposed upon him. People all over the world, as long as there have been people, have been trying to explain something they felt and experienced. People all over the world, influenced by each other or not, will feel a presence and try to explain it. Where do they get that feeling? The Bible is the most popular, and personally most touching, example of people doing this. It is each individual's responsibility to make sense of what they hear and experience for themselves. Take it all in, sort it out, and use your own experiences because they will mean the most to you.

This leaves you with one huge question... What are your personal reasons for being "repelled" by God?

We can be angry with Him. We can be afraid of Him. We can try to run from Him. But before you slam that book and declare as Nietzsche did, God is "....", because you are "repelled" by Him, consider why. For most my life, I was spiritual or agnostic, looking everywhere else for something... because I didn't like myself. I blamed God for that. Blaming Him is already having a relationship with Him, just not a good one and it was my problem, not God. Being repelled by him is already having a relationship with Him also...

 

[aiki]

God can't be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. If he's omniscient, he knows every outcome in the history of the universe right at the start. Therefore, he can't change any outcome at all, because if he changes an outcome, then he didn't know what the outcome was and was therefore not omniscient.

I don't know that God actually changes what will be, but He does act to bring about His purposes through His omniscience. I am not sure why God changing a foreknown circumstance means He had no knowledge of that circumstance. If He had no knowledge of it, how can he act to change it? Can you explain?

If god can't change any outcomes, he can't change any part of his plan, he is not omnipotent.

There are a number of things God can't do but this doesn't mean His power is limited in the sense that it is reduced. It simply means His nature is fixed and unchanging and as a result His power is restrained from use in certain directions. A good police officer does not use his power to abuse citizens, though he has the power to do so. His good character restrains His power; his restraint does not mean he lacks power, however.

God became effectively impotent the moment he became omniscient.

I think you're grossly overstating your case here. At most you can claim that God's omniscience might limit His power, but this doesn't mean God is "impotent." Maybe you don't understand what the word "impotent" means...

At what point in creation did he become omniscient? At that moment, he lost his omnipotence.

I'm sorry, but you haven't made your case for this conclusion very well.

In summary, the best solution to the paradox that allows the possibility of an omniscient, loving, merciful god who grants free will, is to abandon the idea of hell altogether, as one responder almost did when he said "hell is just the end of an unsaved person's existence". God could be omniscient, loving and merciful if he only creates people who will go to heaven.

Nope. This doesn't fly. First off, you haven't clearly established the paradox you assert. Hell does not preclude God's mercy and love any more than a cloudy day precludes all sunny days. God can be, and is, merciful even though He judges and punishes the wicked with hell. A sports fan can love one team and hate another. His hatred of the one team does not preclude his love of the other. This is obvious stuff, so it puzzles me greatly that you argue against it.

Selah.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Crimsonleaf comes to my aid regarding the evasive and disingenuous responses, and I am grateful for that. His is an honest response that again shows the power of faith on the mind. Crimsonleaf accepts that the paradox is there, and yet returns to his faith, with the consonant cognition that god is mysterious. I can't live with that dissonance, it simply isn't good enough for me, but I accept that you can Crimsonleaf. I am not ready to pretend that we already have the answers to these questions of existence, and I am certainly not ready to abandon my search for those answers on the premise that god is mysterious. Mysterious doesn't justify holding on to an idea that is a logical paradox. That would be faith. The logical paradox justifies ditching the idea and finding a better one. That is reason.

dr truth

Thank you for the kind comments. The paradoxes are true in my opinion, and it's true that my faith provides me with belief. But my faith is based on reason. I was an atheist for 11 years and struggled with the same issues, but belief came suddenly and unexpectedly. It also came with an overwhelming sense of relief.

As an atheist I found the biggest paradox to be that of existence itself. The fact that something sprung from nothing with no catalyst seems not to be a viable alternative to our belief in God as a first cause. Just who or what God is, is largely experiential and supported by testimony we consider trustworthy in the form of Biblical and historical evidence, which I found unconvincing as an atheist, but changed my view when applying logic (like considering the death of eyewitnesses for a cause they new to be false, for example). the paradoxes in question in your OP, I have to accept as having a solution unknown and perhaps unfathomable to me. But no more of a problem than the concept of uncaused existence.

Once one accepts that either side of the argument has unanswerable questions, the acceptance of a divine being (which at least offers a solution) becomes less of a matter of pure faith, and a great deal more deductive.

With regard to omniscience I agree with you. God either is or isn't all-knowing.

With regard to omnipotence, then God is omnipotent, but this doesn't extend to logical contradictions (can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, or a square circle).

But the definition of Hell is crucial. And so is the definition of torment. Eternal cognisant torment could simply be existing in the knowledge of having rejected God once the certainty of His existence has been confirmed, for example. This allows God to be omnipresent and allows for his mercy in granting eternal existence. Anyone who's lived in a bad marriage can be aware of the unhappiness of rejection whilst having ongoing contact with the person of their desires.

As said, I don't know the answers, but I believe that the answers exist. And yes, that is a matter of faith.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

This question is based on the following assumptions of god, so it applies only to this particular kind of god. If your god doesn't match these assumptions then ignore the question.

1. god is omniscient
2. god is loving
3. god is merciful
4. hell exists
5. free will exists

Question:

Why would an omniscient, loving, merciful god create people knowing that they will, by their own free will, go to hell?

Because one of THE most greatest forms of love , is a Creator not making us CONFORM ... but extending to us the easy possibility of returning his love back to him, volitionally. Exactly what our earthly Parents want us to do .

Hell is an option for people ; and its based on our own freewill choice . God simply grants what we always desired here on earth : Greater distance from him forever, or, greater closeness to him forever. What could be fairer than that ?

 

[JonahGirl]

Thank you for the kind comments. The paradoxes are true in my opinion, and it's true that my faith provides me with belief. But my faith is based on reason. I was an atheist for 11 years and struggled with the same issues, but belief came suddenly and unexpectedly. It also came with an overwhelming sense of relief.

As an atheist I found the biggest paradox to be that of existence itself. The fact that something sprung from nothing with no catalyst seems not to be a viable alternative to our belief in God as a first cause. Just who or what God is, is largely experiential and supported by testimony we consider trustworthy in the form of Biblical and historical evidence, which I found unconvincing as an atheist, but changed my view when applying logic (like considering the death of eyewitnesses for a cause they new to be false, for example). the paradoxes in question in your OP, I have to accept as having a solution unknown and perhaps unfathomable to me. But no more of a problem than the concept of uncaused existence.

Once one accepts that either side of the argument has unanswerable questions, the acceptance of a divine being (which at least offers a solution) becomes less of a matter of pure faith, and a great deal more deductive.

With regard to omniscience I agree with you. God either is or isn't all-knowing.

With regard to omnipotence, then God is omnipotent, but this doesn't extend to logical contradictions (can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, or a square circle).

But the definition of Hell is crucial. And so is the definition of torment. Eternal cognisant torment could simply be existing in the knowledge of having rejected God once the certainty of His existence has been confirmed, for example. This allows God to be omnipresent and allows for his mercy in granting eternal existence. Anyone who's lived in a bad marriage can be aware of the unhappiness of rejection whilst having ongoing contact with the person of their desires.

As said, I don't know the answers, but I believe that the answers exist. And yes, that is a matter of faith.

I am so glad to hear of your change of heart. I also love the ideas you shared here. I have asked myself many times why people found the Big Bang theory so conclusive. I mean why the initial speck that everything else came from? Where did it come from? What else is there? That doesn't answer anything for me, it creates more questions... Questions that lead me back to God...


I also love your idea TheyCallMeDave. God does seem like a parent... with 7 billion children to consider the feelings and needs of... and knowledge of things we can never know... Your description, we get what we want, makes a great deal of sense.

 

[bling]

This question is based on the following assumptions of god, so it applies only to this particular kind of god. If your god doesn't match these assumptions then ignore the question.

1. god is omniscient
2. god is loving
3. god is merciful
4. hell exists
5. free will exists

Question:

Why would an omniscient, loving, merciful god create people knowing that they will, by their own free will, go to hell?

The “objective” is for man to be like God (that is also like Christ), but what God could not do is make a being that already had at its creation “Godly type Love”. If a being was created with love that would be instinctive or robotic type Love and nothing like God’s Love. God also cannot “force” this Love on beings for that would both not be Love and it would not be Loving on God’s part toward the individual.



Everything can be understood from the objectives:

Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love to fulfill the mission (statement) of Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

Our “objective” while here on earth is to just humbly accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity.

God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.

That “something” is the most powerful force in all universes since it is the force that compels God to do all He does.

God’s Love compelled God to create beings that could Love like He Loves and did it for the sake of those few that would accept His Love.

The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….) God hates sin, but does allow it so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity).


The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By accepting God’s forgiveness we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”

Once we accept Godly type Love, we can truly Love and have the privilege and honor of Loving God (the forgiver) and others (God’s children) with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.




Since God is “Love” and part of the definition of Godly type Love is unselfishness God is totally unselfish? If God is totally unselfish, He will do and allow all He can to help those that are just willing to accept His help fulfill their objective (Love). That “all” includes: Christ to go to the cross, satan to roam the earth, tragedies of all kind, hell, evil, man having free will and even sin.




If we continue to refuse God’s Love and really do not want to Love unselfishly, where is there for us to go? Heaven is one huge Love feast so we would not be happy there and God wants us to be happy. The threat of hell does help potentially willing individuals that do believe in the Christian God and hell to react quickly, so hell is for their sake.

You also ask about God “knowing” our future, well it is our future, but to God that exist outside of our time it is present. The God of our future can just send information back to Himself in our past of all our free will decisions thus knowing all of our future free will decisions, but not really before we make them because for God we have already made them.

 

[Ashlantal]

You seem quite determined to believe what you believe about God... that he does not exist. I understand that your reason has lead you to atheism, and that is your choice, but I wish you would at least look at the faultiness of your original question.

You assume that the attributes of God you proposed are the only ones relevant to the discussion. God's justice, righteousness, and holiness also play their part in the existance of hell. Just because God is mercifull, it does not follow that He is INFINITELY mercifull. His mercy has limits set by His other attributes of holiness, righteousness, and justice. His righteousness sets an incredibly high standard for right and wrong. His holiness demonstrates that He is, in essence, not like man but set apart and different. Finally, His justice demands that every crime receive a just penalty. That phrase "just penalty" is where the definition of hell becomes relevant, in case you were wondering. So up against His desire to be mercifull towards His creations He also has these other attributes that limit that mercy. He would not be just if He allowed all the evil, evil that our free will allows us to bring into the world, to go unpunished. He would not be righteous if He allowed His mercy to overlook the evil done, would He?

So I accept that you reject my earlier post as being an answer to your question... I just hope you realize that you set the framework of the question in such a way as to not get good answers, because the question itself sets limits on God that are not there in the real Theistic God.

So we come back around to the original question: Why did God create people He knew would end up in hell? The answer, ultimately, is that we are not given the information to know why God felt it was necessary to create people He knows will end up in hell. BUT IT IS NOT A PARADOX in the sense I believe you to mean it (definition 2 listed below), but it is a paradox by definition 1 below.

par·a·dox

   /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA
noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.




There is no inherent contradiction here, only something that seems contradictory on the surface but expresses a truth we cannot logically deduce because we do not have all the information. If we could see the end result of all possible eternities future, we might be able to answer this question. Sadly, we cannot. God can, if He chooses to... why not ask Him in humble prayer?

This is a great answer .

bling had a good answer too .

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This question is based on the following assumptions of god, so it applies only to this particular kind of god. If your god doesn't match these assumptions then ignore the question.

1. god is omniscient
2. god is loving
3. god is merciful
4. hell exists
5. free will exists

Question:

Why would an omniscient, loving, merciful god create people knowing that they will, by their own free will, go to hell?

There has to be a choice otherwise life is meaningless.

God is loving in that he gives us a choice and by giving us choices he gives us meaning and purpose. Without the two opposites (heaven and hell) there's no point of reference to give us an ultimate purpose.

My answer assumes God is omniscient.

In reality, I don't really know if omniscience extends into the future because this is assuming that time is like a river stretching into the past and the future. Is this a good model to represent how time works? Or is "knowing the future" akin to "making a square circle"? I don't think God can do something paradoxical and I'm not sure that the river analogy is a truly accurate representation of how time operates. I think there are still some interesting physical and metaphysical questions to be answered regarding the nature of time.

 

[KimberlyAA]

Why would an omniscient, loving, merciful God not create people of free will? Would it be better if we were robots with no ability to reason on our own?

God didn’t create the world primarily for our benefit, he did it for his glory. He created a world that would display his glory most fully and most perfectly. That is to say, every aspect of God’s character could be shown in its most extreme form.

If God had created a world in which no one sinned, what aspects of his character could he have shown? His creative power, his loving-kindness, his provision for his people.

But what about his mercy? Or his justice? Or his wrath?

And would we have seen even his creative power to its fullest extent if there had been no death and therefore no resurrection?

Could we have known the greatness of his loving-kindness if he had not shown it to faithless Israel?

In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction.He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory. (Romans 9:22-23)

God’s wrath expended against unrepentant sinners demonstrates the riches of his glory, just as his mercy shown to the elect demonstrates his glory.

The doctrine that “God has from all eternity decreed the salvation and damnation of each soul that humankind is only acting out a predetermined scenario written by God” is called Calvinism and it is taught nowhere in the Bible. The Bible does teach “predestination”, but only the predestining of a soul to be in heaven AFTER that soul has CHOSEN to believe the Gospel. When the Bible uses the words “predestinate” or “predestinated” it is never referring to God’s fixing of people’s salvation/damnation before their birth, nor does it ever refer to humankind acting out a predetermined scenario written by God.

 

[crimsonleaf]

The doctrine that “God has from all eternity decreed the salvation and damnation of each soul that humankind is only acting out a predetermined scenario written by God” is called Calvinism and it is taught nowhere in the Bible. The Bible does teach “predestination”, but only the predestining of a soul to be in heaven AFTER that soul has CHOSEN to believe the Gospel. When the Bible uses the words “predestinate” or “predestinated” it is never referring to God’s fixing of people’s salvation/damnation before their birth, nor does it ever refer to humankind acting out a predetermined scenario written by God.

There are many, many Protestants who disagree with this statement. And even if the statement were agreed with, you're still left with the problem that God, being outside of time, knows before He created anything that some would end up in Heaven and some in Hell, yet He created them anyway. Which really is the OP's point.

Of course you could always argue that whoever ends up in each place will come as a total surprise to God, but you're opening a can of worms of (literally) Biblical proportions.

And there are still a lot of questions being answered that aren't being asked...

By the way, your opening statement isn't what Calvinists believe, but it is a common distortion.

 

[GrayAngel]

Some people don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "predestination."

Pre: Before
Destination: Guided destiny

Put them together and you get "guided destiny prepared beforehand."

Predestination by definition happens before, not after. To say that God predestines after we choose Him is nonsense and turns "predestination" into a meaningless word. And according to the Bible, we were predestined before the foundation of the world. No matter how many times you say otherwise, the will facts will never change.

Ephesians 1:4-6 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

 

[elman]

Some people don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "predestination."

Pre: Before
Destination: Guided destiny

Put them together and you get "guided destiny prepared beforehand."

Predestination by definition happens before, not after. To say that God predestines after we choose Him is nonsense and turns "predestination" into a meaningless word. And according to the Bible, we were predestined before the foundation of the world. No matter how many times you say otherwise, the will facts will never change.

Ephesians 1:4-6 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

Is there someone God predestined to go to hell and be tortured forever? If so God is not good. According to the Bible God is good. That is a fact that will never change.

 

[GrayAngel]

Is there someone God predestined to go to hell and be tortured forever? If so God is not good. According to the Bible God is good. That is a fact that will never change.

I don't want to get in trouble by debating with you here (although I've already sort of risked it). We can discuss this via PM, if you like, or in a thread in the proper sub-forum.

 

[pico]

Dr. Truth, have you Molinism's answer to your question? If so, how do you evaluate it?