The Problem of Hell v.2

[Skavau]

Are you wanting me to address the various contentions in your op, or just what you have written above?

Either or. You're welcome to use any criticism I've leveled against previously enacted defenses.

 

[Elioenai26]

Just tit for tat.

Make your case in however much depth you like for why eternal torment in hell is a justified punishment/consequence for non-believers. I'll respond each time.

Mr. Skavau, I thank you once again for accepting this invitation to discuss the topic of hell. I would like to make it known before I go any further that I will be addressing you and only you from here on out in this thread. I will start by laying some groundwork in the form of a question.

Q. The bible teaches that God is all loving and that there are some people that are going to hell, do you agree?

 

[Skavau]

Mr. Skavau, I thank you once again for accepting this invitation to discuss the topic of hell. I would like to make it known before I go any further that I will be addressing you and only you from here on out in this thread. I will start by laying some groundwork in the form of a question.

Q. The bible teaches that God is all loving and that there are some people that are going to hell, do you agree?

A. I can accept that, but I don't see it as relevant. This discussion is not about establishing what is but what ought. This thread was addressed specifically to Christians who contended that God is both all loving and sent some or allows some people to hell. The argument at its most basic is that these are incompatible claims. I therefore assume that the people who defend this doctrine believe that God is all-loving and believe that some people are going to hell.

 

[Elioenai26]

A. I can accept that, but I don't see it as relevant.

Please bear with me. This may be tedious doing it tit for tat as you desire. But I am building my case.

Since you accept that the bible teaches that God is all loving and that there are some people that are going to hell, my next question is:

2. Are the statements: "God is all loving" and "some people are going to hell" explicitly contradictory? Yes or no

 

[Skavau]

Please bear with me. This may be tedious doing it tit for tat as you desire. But I am building my case.

Since you accept that the bible teaches that God is all loving and that there are some people that are going to hell, my next question is:

2. Are the statements: "God is all loving" and "some people are going to hell" explicitly contradictory? Yes or no

Yes.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes.

The two are not explicitly contradictory Skavau.

An explicit contradiction would be to have the following: "a is a" and then "a is not a" in the same place at the same time. This is an explicit contradiction and by virtue of such, is necessarily false.

The statements: "God is all loving" and "some people are going to hell" are not explicitly contradictory.

Now, if the bible said that "God is all loving" and then said "God is not all loving", then this would be explicitly contradictory. Or if the bible said that "all people are going to hell" and then "all people are not going to hell", this would be contradictory.

Do you understand?

 

[Skavau]

The two are not explicitly contradictory Skavau.

An explicit contradiction would be to have the following: "a is a" and then "a is not a" in the same place at the same time. This is an explicit contradiction and by virtue of such, is necessarily false.

This is pointless semantics.

The claim that God is an all-loving being whilst at the same time condemning people to hell is incompatible.

Now, if the bible said that "God is all loving" and then said "God is not all loving", then this would be explicitly contradictory. Or if the bible said that "all people are going to hell" and then "all people are not going to hell", this would be contradictory.

Do you understand?

I do, but this is mere semantics. It does nothing to my core point.

 

[Elioenai26]

This is pointless semantics.

This is a philosophy forum, and as such, this is a place where I am going to primarily argue from a philosophical perspective.

To dismiss my statements as pointless semantics when I am trying to get you to understand what an explicit contradiction is and how it is a part of my case is not charitable Skavau. If you would like for me to build my case, then bear with me.

I do, but this is mere semantics. It does nothing to my core point.

I am building my case and shortly, we will be addressing the core of your argument.

Asking questions is an aspect of the Socratic method of demonstrating the truthfulness of a proposition. I ask the questions, you follow along the way until we reach a divergence of understanding. Please bear with me.

The claim that God is an all-loving being whilst at the same time condemning people to hell is incompatible.

The point I was making in showing you that there is no explicit contradiction in the aforementioned propositions was this:

There are certain assumptions you are making when you say: "The claim that God is an all-loving being whilst at the same time condemning people to hell is incompatible".

Please tell me what those assumptions are. In other words, you are assuming some things that are implicit in your statement. You are assuming some things about God. What are those assumptions? Or, I could ask, why is it incompatible?

 

[Skavau]

This is a philosophy forum, and as such, this is a place where I am going to primarily argue from a philosophical perspective.

So do so, you don't need to make build up for your arguments.

To dismiss my statements as pointless semantics when I am trying to get you to understand what an explicit contradiction is and how it is a part of my case is not charitable Skavau. If you would like for me to build my case, then bear with me.

The "explicit contradiction" was frankly not relevant. Fine, there is no underlying "explicit" contradiction between an omnibenevolent God and torture in hell. It is implicit. This does not impact even slightly on my argument. That line of argument was never going anywhere.

I am building my case and shortly, we will be addressing the core of your argument.

Asking questions is an aspect of the Socratic method of demonstrating the truthfulness of a proposition. I ask the questions, you follow along the way until we reach a divergence of understanding. Please bear with me.

This is a debate, is it not? We've had this discussion before and I am sure you know my position on this. I am contending that eternal hell is unjust and you are not.

There are certain assumptions you are making when you say: "The claim that God is an all-loving being whilst at the same time condemning people to hell is incompatible".

Please tell me what those assumptions are. In other words, you are assuming some things that are implicit in your statement. You are assuming some things about God. What are those assumptions? Or, I could ask, why is it incompatible?

You should have asked that at the beginning of this debate.

These are at least, meaningful questions. I'll answer immediately by saying that I am actually not making any assumptions. I am making assertions. Morality is ultimately a value judgement, or when decided a decree on what we ought to do or ought not do. I judge that torture because of what it is and because what it does is wrong. I judge that it is wrong at all times. I also judge that threatening people with torture for what they think, or how they think or for who they are is tyrannical, barbaric and ultimately unjust. The God that you believe in and the God that you pledge allegiance to does both. You also say that God is benevolent. I call this inconsistent and unresolvable with even a child-like understanding of morality.

This is all I need to make this claim. If you recall my original post was directed only to theists who say that hell exists. It was not directed towards Universalists or Annihilationists. I am arguing that a being believed by many to be just is actually in fact entirely unjust.

 

[Elioenai26]

I judge that torture because of what it is and because what it does is wrong. I judge that it is wrong at all times. I also judge that threatening people with torture for what they think, or how they think or for who they are is tyrannical, barbaric and ultimately unjust.

So you maintain that torture is wrong and it is wrong for all people in all places at all times, no matter what a person believes or what a society of people believe?

Is this your position, yes or no?

 

[Skavau]

So you maintain that torture is wrong and it is wrong for all people in all places at all times, no matter what a person believes or what a society of people believe?

Is this your position, yes or no?

Yes it is.

Whether or not you think that position from my perspective is groundless is irrelevant. It should be a big problem for you because it would lead you to defending torture if you take the position I think you're about to take.

I mean how does it not concern you that you believe in and praise a God who you know for certain will allow the permanent torture of billions?

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes it is.

Great. I am glad you hold that torture is wrong no matter what an individual may think or even what a whole society of people think.

In fact, torture, like child abuse, would be wrong even if everybody in a country, or the whole world for that fact thinks it is right, do you agree? Torture is wrong and there is no moral justification for it, do you agree?

Yes or no?

 

[Skavau]

Great. I am glad you hold that torture is wrong no matter what an individual may think or even what a whole society of people think.

In fact, torture, like child abuse, would be wrong even if everybody in a country, or the whole world for that fact thinks it is right, do you agree? Torture is wrong and there is no moral justification for it, do you agree?

Yes or no?

Yes, I do.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, I do.

Excellent! I am in total agreement with you. Now, moving on...

I want to make sure I understand your position.

You are basically arguing that God does not exist because the Bible states that God is love, and that also at the same time, God created people, some of which are going to be tormented in Hell for eternity for rejecting Him and His offer of salvation. The two are seemingly contradictory, and cannot be defended, and therefore the God of the Bible does not exist.

Is this your position?

 

[Skavau]

Excellent! I am in total agreement with you. Now, moving on...

Obviously not, since you believe God will torture people who aren't saved after death.

I want to make sure I understand your position.

You are basically arguing that God does not exist because the Bible states that God is love, and that also at the same time, God created people, some of which are going to be tormented in Hell for eternity for rejecting Him and His offer of salvation. The two are seemingly contradictory, and cannot be defended, and therefore the God of the Bible does not exist.

Is this your position?

No.

This is not an argument about God's existence. God could very well exist whilst tormenting people in hell who don't accept him. He might even describe himself as love whilst doing so. The point is that such a God, were they to exist, would be not worth worship. They would be contemptible.

Unless of course, there exists a good reason to torment people for eternity for being unsaved.

I await, as always for that argument to be expressed.

 

[Elioenai26]

The point is that such a God, were they to exist, would be not worth worship. They would be contemptible.

Ok. Let's lay some groundwork.

1. The Bible says that God created man and woman in His image correct?

 

[Skavau]

Ok. Let's lay some groundwork.

1. The Bible says that God created man and woman in His image correct?

Sure

 

[Elioenai26]

Sure

What attributes do God's image bearers possess? Name a couple of them for me.

 

[quatona]

What attributes do God's image bearers possess? Name a couple of them for me.

Perfection? Inability to be in the presence of evil? Being non-physical?
Omnipotence? Omniscience? Omnibenevolence? Creatorship of everything from nothing? Being eternal? Being the Alpha and Omega? Being supernatural? Being the objective source of morality?
Why don´t you simply tell us which of the attributes ascribed to God are the image bearers of God supposed to possess, and by which criteria you picked them?

 

[Skavau]

What attributes do God's image bearers possess? Name a couple of them for me.

Look, is this going anywhere?

Either you have an argument or you don't. I presume you do really believe that all non-Christians are going to hell to receive eternal torment, right?