Why Jac has no (logical) problem with Hell

[Jac3510]

Jac:

1.  If I am still me, I will still choose to behave in a manner that benefits myself as well as society.  Others I know who are not "in Christ" will behave the same.  Some will not.  For that reason, hell will be nothing more than the world as it is now.  I'm ok with that.  The terrible place you describe requires the actual change of a person's essence wherein they will no longer have the capacity to benefit themselves and others around them on purely logical grounds.

PS, the only reason you or I do anything good for others is because there is still some measure of goodness in us. By definition, if all goodness is rooted in God, then all good actions we do are rooted in Him. That is expressed in Rom 2:14ff by saying that we all have the moral law written on our hearts. When a person is finally severed from God's presence, when that moral law is finally erased, there will be no logical capacity for good. That, however, does not change your essence. It is still the same you as it was before. The only thing that has changed is your relationship to goodness.

2.  Neither AIDS nor malnutrition are a place created to put rapists and people with a poor diet.

No, but they are natural consequences or such actions, which is the extent of the analogy. Separation from God has certain natural, logical consequences, namely being the severing from all that is good. The suffering in Hell is not punitive. It is consequential.

3.  Your definition is theological, not ontological.  I KNOW that there are things that benefit myself and my species.  This is how I define "good".

Your definition of "good" as "that which benefits myself and my species" is purely subjective. It's based on your personal value system and nothing more. What if I don't value what benefits my species? What if I only value what benefits myself? Then for me, rape may be "good," and you would have to say, "Under your definition, rape really is good, but under my definition, it is not." Or suppose I am less selfish than you, and rather than value what is good for me and my species, I value what is good for the environment. Now suppose that I conclude that humans are destroying the environment, so the only really good thing to do is work for policies that bring about the deaths of billions of people to reduce the human population, and perhaps even to bring us to extinction! That would be "good" then.

So it turns out that your definition is just as theological as mine. I've rooted mine in God. You've rooted yours in yourself. The difference is that I have a philosophically coherent way to speak about what is "good" in an objective manner. You don't. You may as well be honest enough to stop using the word "good" and just limit it to "that which benefits me and humanity," and take what comes with it, which includes the total relativation of all morality. After all, if the collective good trumps all, then things like slavery are not only morally justified, but morally necessary. And if individual good trumps all, then you may as well argue that rape or any other such atrocity that brings pleasure to the individual is good. And since neither of these can really be regarded as good by any sane human, you may as well recognize that by "good" you are just talking about behavior you approve of thanks, in large part, to the society in which you were raised, on on those grounds, go on to recognize that "good" is really meaningless, because what you approve of is absolutely no more valuable than what Osama bin Laden approves of.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Davin, look, I've made my case and you've made yours with respect to my objections on the first page. I'm content to let this lie. If you would like to discuss the actual content of the thread, feel free. Others can decide if my objections were and are fair or not.

And thump,

Would you be so kind as to reduce your response to the few major points you would like addressed? I've been doing that for several posts, but things are starting to get very fragmented, and I would appreciate it if you could boil down your objections to where you mainly disagree. Thanks.

[PoopShoot]

PS, the only reason you or I do anything good for others is because there is still some measure of goodness in us. By definition, if all goodness is rooted in God, then all good actions we do are rooted in Him. That is expressed in Rom 2:14ff by saying that we all have the moral law written on our hearts. When a person is finally severed from God's presence, when that moral law is finally erased, there will be no logical capacity for good. That, however, does not change your essence. It is still the same you as it was before. The only thing that has changed is your relationship to goodness.

You've not supported the idea that goodness is only an effect generated by god and in doing so actually negate the bible passages wherein god sees that his creation is good.  That said, I do good things on logical grounds, so unless your argument is that god changes my mind so that I reason differently it is a moot argument.

No, but they are natural consequences or such actions, which is the extent of the analogy. Separation from God has certain natural, logical consequences, namely being the severing from all that is good. The suffering in Hell is not punitive. It is consequential.

God created the place knowing what the "natural consequences" of it would be.  According to your logic, life in prison isn't punitive because the punishment is consequential to being there.  It's bullshit because we build prisons knowing what awaits people inside.  We KNOW people will suffer there and that's WHY we build prisons.  The same goes for hell, god KNOWS we will suffer there and that WHY he built it.  He had the option to cause us to merely cease existence, instead he chose to make our suffering eternal.  Knowingly putting someone in a place KNOWN to be a place of suffering is the same as causing their suffering yourself.  By your logic there is no such thing as a murderer, after all, the natural consequences of a bullet ripping through your vital organs is death, that guy just pulled the trigger.  We consider him a murderer by virtue of the fact that he KNEW what the natural consequences of putting that bullet in his victim was but CHOSE to do it anyway.  The same goes for god, he KNOWS what he is doing but still chooses to be the initiating cause of these people's suffering.

Your definition of "good" as "that which benefits myself and my species" is purely subjective. It's based on your personal value system and nothing more. What if I don't value what benefits my species?

You're shooting past the point.  Whether a person finds the thing of value is irrelevant.  You don't consider your morality subjective despite the fact that many people, including myself, consider the source of it valueless.  If I don't value benefiting my species, I have an antisocial disorder as defined by modern psychology.  That which benefits my species is still objective.

What if I only value what benefits myself? Then for me, rape may be "good," and you would have to say, "Under your definition, rape really is good, but under my definition, it is not." Or suppose I am less selfish than you, and rather than value what is good for me and my species, I value what is good for the environment. Now suppose that I conclude that humans are destroying the environment, so the only really good thing to do is work for policies that bring about the deaths of billions of people to reduce the human population, and perhaps even to bring us to extinction! That would be "good" then.

And what if I think that the Qur'an is the eternal word of god and that the decadence of America is against the will of god?  I might see flying planes into buildings as "good".  And what if I see abortion as murder and the execution of murderers as good?  I might shoot a doctor who works for Planned Parenthood.  You're not addressing the basis of my morality, only that you disagree.  In fact, what is listed in the snippet to which I am currently referring does not contain a single thing that actually addresses MY point, but rather what would be my point were I to say that morality is what benefits me or that morality is what benefits the environment.  You are saying that what I view objectively isn't objective because if I didn't view it I would view something different.  By that logic your morality is subjective because if you were Hindu you wouldn't be Christian.

So it turns out that your definition is just as theological as mine.

No.  Mine isn't rooted in a god.

I've rooted mine in God. You've rooted yours in yourself.

Negative, mine is rooted in my species.  That said, your own logic implies that nothing is rooted in god, but in yourself by your acceptance of your interpretation of scripture.

The difference is that I have a philosophically coherent way to speak about what is "good" in an objective manner. You don't.

Bullshit.  What benefits myself and humanity is an objective stance, it's a layered one, but it's objective.  Your scripture has to be interpreted, so your morality is subjective to the interpreter.

You may as well be honest enough to stop using the word "good" and just limit it to "that which benefits me and humanity," and take what comes with it, which includes the total relativation of all morality.

So I should start using the definition of terms instead of the term?  No sir, that would make "a trip to the store in my automobile" a "relocation from my current position to a position wherein items may be exchanged for currency by means of a device utilizing four wheels and an internal combustion engine".  Of course, that wouldn't work either, as the longer version contains terms as well.  Once a term is defined, in this case "good: that which benefits myself and mankind" the term is a perfectly acceptable shorthand for the definition.  I need not say "that which benefits myself and mankind" because I have already termed this "good".

After all, if the collective good trumps all, then things like slavery are not only morally justified, but morally necessary.

That depends on the society.  Regardless of that fact, YOUR inerrant word of god condones and regulates slavery while never repealing that set of edicts, therefore it is YOUR version of morality that allows slavery in a modern context.  Slavery has already outlived any benefit to humanity it ever had and then there were wars fought to get people to understand that.  Your god's edict that you can sell your daughter has never been repealed by what you claim to be the ultimate moral authority.

And if individual good trumps all, then you may as well argue that rape or any other such atrocity that brings pleasure to the individual is good. And since neither of these can really be regarded as good by any sane human, you may as well recognize that by "good" you are just talking about behavior you approve of thanks, in large part, to the society in which you were raised, on on those grounds, go on to recognize that "good" is really meaningless, because what you approve of is absolutely no more valuable than what Osama bin Laden approves of.

It's not binary, it's collective.  it must benefit the individual AND the species.  And by your own argument it is good to kill people for gathering firewood on Saturday, kill your daughter for having premarital sex, kill your son for being disobedient, etc.  In other words, your morality IS no different than Osama's, whereas mine is merely PERCEIVED that way by you.

[Davin]

Davin, look, I've made my case and you've made yours with respect to my objections on the first page. I'm content to let this lie. If you would like to discuss the actual content of the thread, feel free. Others can decide if my objections were and are fair or not.

Sure, there is this part of my post (slightly corrected):

So when there is insufficient evidence to believe in this Jesus Christ as the one true god/savior/half-ling/whatever, then we must suffer for it? Why punish people for not believing in something they cannot be sure is accurate and as close to reality as possible?

Before you go onto a tangent about it not really being god punishing the people, remember god created everything (at least in this hypothetical). Even if it was a consequence beyond the power of god to prevent the suffering the people he created: not ever existing is much better than being eternally tortured.

Here's an example:

Take a bunch of infants and dump them in a large room with food and water, leave them there for ten years with no contact to the outside world. Then go in and any one of those children who doesn't believe in you, send them to be tortured for the rest of their lives.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And thump,

Would you be so kind as to reduce your response to the few major points you would like addressed? I've been doing that for several posts, but things are starting to get very fragmented, and I would appreciate it if you could boil down your objections to where you mainly disagree. Thanks.

Believe me, I've tried.

[Jac3510]

PS,

1. You said that I've "not supported the idea that goodness is only an effect generated by god and in doing so actually negate the bible passages wherein god sees that his creation is good." You are making a very subtle mistake here. The general argument of this thread is that Hell is not incompatible with a good God. Now, to have that argument, we must accept Hell on its terms and a good God on its terms to see if the two views are incompatible or not. You may disagree with some of the details in either doctrine and therefore reject them, but that is a different argument. Suppose, for instance, you reject my description of Hell and insist on some other. You could not, then, take your doctrine of Hell and find where it is incompatible with the concept of a good God and therefore declare that my concept of Hell doesn't work. Obviously, that would be a straw man.

What you have done here is to take your conception of good and use it as a basis of critique. But if we are talking about the Christian conception of a good God--which we are since the standard charge is that the Christian God, being good, is incompatible with the notion of an eternal Hell--then your personal conception of good is not the issue here. Once we answer the question as to whether or not the Christian conception of a good God is compatible with Hell as I have described it, and therefore refuted the traditional argument put forward here, we can then get on to other issues, i.e., why should we accept the Christian conception of a good God when you have a different view of goodness

It is only a moot point, then, if you aren't interested in the thread.

2. Concerning punitive vs. consequential suffering, you object on the basis that God made the system and could have made it differently. Your citation of the prison system nicely illustrates this. If it were logically possible for God to have created the world a different way, then I would agree with you. My argument, as I have said from the beginning, is that Hell is the necessary logical corollary to certain ideas inherent in the concept of God and creation. In other words, God could not have made this world any differently than He could have made a square circle.

Stating my reasoning again, in brief, it goes as follows:

Moral agency requires a choice between good and evil (if there is no such thing as good and evil to choose between, there is no such thing as moral agency), which means that it is logically absurd to suggest that God could have created a world in which good exists but not the possibility of evil. The very essence of goodness is God's nature (on the Christian view), and therefore, to do anything good, fundamentally is to act in accordance with God's nature. It is to participate in some degree in Him. To act in a way that is contradictory to His nature is to do "evil." Everything that we call good is actually in some degree to experience God (and for this, I refer you to the thread on simplicity, in which I've argued that all perfections find their union in God). Therefore, to not experience God is to not experience goodness, which is to say, to experience evil.

At this point, we must stop to note that things are necessarily this way. Just like God can't create a square circle, if to act in accordance with God's nature is what we call good, then God can't create a world in which behavior against His nature is good. You would effectively be asking God to create non-existence, which is absurd. To illustrate, sight is "good" because it is the proper function of the eye, and because it is the proper function, we find it useful to do things like drive down the road to go to work. Blindness is "evil" because it deprives the eye of its basic function, and therefore, it prevents us from doing useful things like driving down the road. It is not the consequence that makes blindness evil, but the privation of purpose that makes it evil. In other words, the loss of the perfection (intended purpose) is what we mean by evil. Still in other words, blindness is not a thing -- it is a lack of something, namely, the ability to see, and therefore, it is evil.

To choose a good thing in any given circumstance is to choose the fullest intended existence, which is to say, it is to choose God. To love rather than to be apathetic is to choose what is rather than to act according to what is not. Love is real--it is what is. Apathy is the complete loss of love. Our love is good when we direct it at what is--goodness--rather than at what is not--evil--which is to say we direct our love at God. To ask God, then, to create a world in which morality--what is good and evil--doesn't exist is either to ask Him to create a world without moral agency or to ask Him to create a world in which goodness is not expressed. We see just such a world. It is neither good nor evil when a lion eats a zebra. It is dreadfully evil when one man murders another.

So the moment God decides to create a world in which goodness is expressed in moral agency, He is logically and necessarily bound to create a world in which men may choose to accept or reject Him. There is no logical alternative.

It's an easy step to see that God will not force Himself on us. You have a choice to accept or reject God. To accept Him is to participate in the good, and to reject Him is to reject all goodness. Again, it can be no other way logically. Were God to grant you the experience of goodness even in your rejection of Him would be to force Himself on you. As a silly email chain once pointed out, it is funny that people kicked God out of school but then get angry at Him for not preventing school shootings. More generally, we cannot logically tell Him to leave us alone but then demand that He give us the pleasure of His presence by experiencing His goodness.

And so I content that it is logically impossible for God to create a world in which moral agents of His creation may reject Him and still experience goodness.

3. Finally, concerning the nature of goodness, you missed my point. Certainly the stance "what benefits humans" is objective. The problem is that your choice to set "what benefits humans" as the objective stance is a strictly subjective, completely personal value. There's nothing objective about why you ought to choose that rather than any other value. You may as well say "what hurts humans" is the basic good, and you know what . . . that would be objective, too!

You also missed the pragmatic point I was making. "What benefits humans" is not what you consider good, your insistence on it to the contrary. Slavery is wrong, although it benefits some societies. It is still wrong. If you had a time machine and could kill a serial murderer when they were but a child, wouldn't that murder still be wrong, even though it would benefit society? I think so. You may not, but it's a matter of debate. It s easy to come up with things that are "good for society" that are still wrong.

But, again, you can't even get that far, because there is absolutely no reason to suggest that "what benefits humans" is the "good." That's your personal value, regardless of where you got it from (evolution or society or some holy book).

If we are to say that there is a truly objective morality, we must assert that there is an objective reason for saying any given value is the real good. We can only do that if we can point to an ought, which can only be done if there is a real purpose or design, which can only be possible if there is a Designer. A bit of philosophy helps us clarify the relationship between Good and the Designer, but unless we posit goodness rooted in intended design, it just becomes personal choice.

--------------------------------------------------------

Davin,

Sure, there is this part of my post (slightly corrected):

So when there is insufficient evidence to believe in this Jesus Christ as the one true god/savior/half-ling/whatever, then we must suffer for it? Why punish people for not believing in something they cannot be sure is accurate and as close to reality as possible?

Before you go onto a tangent about it not really being god punishing the people, remember god created everything (at least in this hypothetical). Even if it was a consequence beyond the power of god to prevent the suffering the people he created: not ever existing is much better than being eternally tortured.

Here's an example:

Take a bunch of infants and dump them in a large room with food and water, leave them there for ten years with no contact to the outside world. Then go in and any one of those children who doesn't believe in you, send them to be tortured for the rest of their lives.

I believe we are making real progress if for no other reason than you are responding to my comments exactly as I would make them. First, why are we punished for rejecting God? As you note, it isn't a punishment. It's a consequence. But didn't God set it up that way? As you note, God couldn't have made it any other way. Then shouldn't God have not created? After all, isn't non-existence better than eternal suffering?

To this, I simply reply that while I understand the point, I think that on a fundamental level you question might actually be meaningless, and if the question itself isn't meaningless, any answer I might attempt would be meaningless.

When you suggest that it would be "better" to not-exist, what is the "you" that benefits? How can you say, "It would be better if I didn't exist at all"? If you didn't exist, then there would be no "you" to be better off. The moment we start trying to use words to compare the benefits of non-existence, we immediately start thinking in terms of existence. To follow old Parmenides, if non-existence is possible, we can't think about it, so any discussion on the matter is really useless. Or to steal a line from atheist apologists, if non-existence were better off than eternal suffering, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

In that case, I take the answer to your last question to be, "The question either has no meaning, or, if it does, and since if it were so we would not be here, I can only assume that, no, non-existence is not better than suffering (whatever that means).

--------------------------------------------------------

Thump, try again?

[PoopShoot]

1. You said that I've "not supported the idea that goodness is only an effect generated by god and in doing so actually negate the bible passages wherein god sees that his creation is good."

...

What you have done here is to take your conception of good and use it as a basis of critique.

You clearly have failed at reading comprehension.  I'm not talking about God being good, I'm talking about your claim that people are only good because god is.  Your implication is that people are inherently bad, which negates "and he saw that it was good".  Furthermore, I DO use my basis of good as a critique.  If you claim "god is good" as ne of your premises, one avenue of debate is to address that premise.  It's not a fallacy, it's a debate.  I DO reject that your idea of god is good, but that wasn't the point I was making here, rather, I was pointing out WHY your premise that people are inherently bad is not only flawed, but contradictory to your holy book.

2. Concerning punitive vs. consequential suffering, you object on the basis that God made the system and could have made it differently. Your citation of the prison system nicely illustrates this. If it were logically possible for God to have created the world a different way, then I would agree with you. My argument, as I have said from the beginning, is that Hell is the necessary logical corollary to certain ideas inherent in the concept of God and creation. In other words, God could not have made this world any differently than He could have made a square circle.

Stating my reasoning again, in brief, it goes as follows:

Moral agency requires a choice between good and evil ...

This doesn't address Hell, but rather moral agency.  Furthermore, it underscores the fact that hell is punitive by virtue of the fact that your very argument is 'bad things need be punished somehow'.  Regardless, none of your argument addresses hell in any way, but rather the idea of free will.

 (if there is no such thing as good and evil to choose between, there is no such thing as moral agency), which means that it is logically absurd to suggest that God could have created a world in which good exists but not the possibility of evil. The very essence of goodness is God's nature (on the Christian view), and therefore, to do anything good, fundamentally is to act in accordance with God's nature. It is to participate in some degree in Him. To act in a way that is contradictory to His nature is to do "evil." Everything that we call good is actually in some degree to experience God (and for this, I refer you to the thread on simplicity, in which I've argued that all perfections find their union in God). Therefore, to not experience God is to not experience goodness, which is to say, to experience evil.  You've still not supported why a place needs to be built in which people are tortured for eternity due to their unwillingness to behave.

3. Finally, concerning the nature of goodness, you missed my point. Certainly the stance "what benefits humans" is objective. The problem is that your choice to set "what benefits humans" as the objective stance is a strictly subjective, completely personal value. There's nothing objective about why you ought to choose that rather than any other value.

And there's nothing objective about why you choose the bible as the source for your morality.  If that's your reasoning behind why it's subjective then, by your logic, everything ever done is subjective.

Slavery is wrong, although it benefits some societies. It is still wrong.

Demonstrate this and explain why you feel this way.

If you had a time machine and could kill a serial murderer when they were but a child, wouldn't that murder still be wrong, even though it would benefit society? I think so.

I agree.  Since we are invoking imaginary machinery, we must also have a device that would correct his neural pathology, removing his need to kill.

It s easy to come up with things that are "good for society" that are still wrong.

Yes, but that's because you overlook the individual component that I mentioned.  Since I reiterated it, I assume that you're doing it on purpose, which is intellectually dishonest.

But, again, you can't even get that far, because there is absolutely no reason to suggest that "what benefits humans" is the "good."

Bullshit.  We're humans, therefore benefiting our species is the fundamental foundation of good.  In fact, it's the very thing Christians fall back on as evidence that their biblical based morality is good.  "Why is fornication wrong?"  "STDs, unwanted pregnancies, dangerous psychological damage..."

That's your personal value, regardless of where you got it from (evolution or society or some holy book).

Project much?

If we are to say that there is a truly objective morality, we must assert that there is an objective reason for saying any given value is the real good. We can only do that if we can point to an ought, which can only be done if there is a real purpose or design, which can only be possible if there is a Designer. A bit of philosophy helps us clarify the relationship between Good and the Designer, but unless we posit goodness rooted in intended design, it just becomes personal choice.

No.  Your reasoning is still "I like that god said so".  Furthermore, as stated above, you cannot impose that designer and his design without invoking "it's good for your species, you were designed that way".

[Sophus]

Hold the phone, "slavery is wrong?!" I wouldn't have known that having only read the Bible.

[Jac3510]

You clearly have failed at reading comprehension.  I'm not talking about God being good, I'm talking about your claim that people are only good because god is.  Your implication is that people are inherently bad, which negates "and he saw that it was good".  Furthermore, I DO use my basis of good as a critique.  If you claim "god is good" as ne of your premises, one avenue of debate is to address that premise.  It's not a fallacy, it's a debate.  I DO reject that your idea of god is good, but that wasn't the point I was making here, rather, I was pointing out WHY your premise that people are inherently bad is not only flawed, but contradictory to your holy book.

With only passing reference to the snide remark (not constructive, PS), you missed my point. You had argued that I failed to support my claim about why goodness comes from God. That is what I was responding to. I don't have to prove the statement is true before deciding if it is consistent with another position, which is what this thread is about.

As far as your citation of the Bible goes, it has nothing to do with our discussion. I'm obviously a Christian who believes the Bible is true, but the subject matter is whether or not the Christian conception of God is consistent with the concept of Hell. If we start getting into "Yeah, but this verse says this and that verse says that" we are ignoring the main argument. We can have another discussion on whether or not the Bible is consistent on the matter, but the point remains, that is a different argument.

Finally, you've failed to understand the basic argument if you think "God is good" is one of the premises. It is not. It is one of the assumptions. I am explaining on what basis the God concept is not contradictory to the Hell concept. The entire problem is that Hell is incompatible with a good God. To argue against God's goodness is to have, again, another debate. A different discussion. Further, to argue that God is not good is to negate the entire argument against Hell that you yourself employ, which is the subject of this thread, namely, that Hell is incompatible with a good God. If God isn't good, then there's no reason to think He wouldn't cast people into Hell willy-nilly whatever Hell's nature.

This doesn't address Hell, but rather moral agency.  Furthermore, it underscores the fact that hell is punitive by virtue of the fact that your very argument is 'bad things need be punished somehow'.  Regardless, none of your argument addresses hell in any way, but rather the idea of free will.

My argument has nothing to do with "bad things need to be punished." I never used the word "punish." You added that yourself. Would you like to address my argument or one you are simply making up and attributing to me?

Second, it does address the issue of Hell. You wanted to know how it was that Hell could be a natural consequence and not punitive. I am explaining it. Moral agency requires the existence of both good and evil; the former is rooted in God's nature; rejection of good is therefore the rejection of God's nature; and therefore, rejection of God results in the complete severance from all goodness. Your choice has a consequence--a logically necessary consequence that God Himself cannot change.

And there's nothing objective about why you choose the bible as the source for your morality.  If that's your reasoning behind why it's subjective then, by your logic, everything ever done is subjective.

Where have I once said that we get our morality from the Bible, PS? In fact, if I may quote myself:

Remember, I believe that morality is objective, and therefore, you don't need the Bible to tell you right from wrong. You know how you ought to treat others.

I have repeatedly argued on these forums that we do not get morality from the Bible. I have said repeatedly that atheists can be just as moral as Christians. How many times are you going to continue to attribute positions to me that I have explicitly rejected? Conversations require a two-way exchange of ideas. Are you even listening to me, PS, or are you just preaching? Do you have a particular image of what all Christians believe, as if Christianity were some monolithic religion, that you are imposing on me, regardless of many times I tell you otherwise?

I thoroughly expect you to take my stated positions into account when we are discussing these things. If you aren't willing to do that, then why are you wasting your time talking to me about anything? Why not just say, "Well, other Christians believe this?" My response will just be, "So what?" You expect me to consider your positions. I expect the same from you.

Demonstrate this and explain why you feel this way.

It's self-evident. You know its wrong. I know its wrong, just like we both know that torturing babies is wrong. Are you going to sit there and tell me that slavery--the kind we had in America for years--is not wrong?

I agree.  Since we are invoking imaginary machinery, we must also have a device that would correct his neural pathology, removing his need to kill.

Yes, but that's because you overlook the individual component that I mentioned.  Since I reiterated it, I assume that you're doing it on purpose, which is intellectually dishonest.

The very fact that you agree that some things are wrong that would still be beneficial to society is enough to demonstrate that your moral value is no moral value at all. If you want to talk about intellectual honesty, then you can admit that and be honest or ignore it and be dishonest. Up to you. There is a reason utilitarianism isn't widely held by ethicists these days.

Bullshit.  We're humans, therefore benefiting our species is the fundamental foundation of good.  In fact, it's the very thing Christians fall back on as evidence that their biblical based morality is good.  "Why is fornication wrong?"  "STDs, unwanted pregnancies, dangerous psychological damage..."

And here you contradict yourself. First you say you agree with me that it would be wrong to do something that benefits society, and here you assert again that what benefits society is the basis of what is right.

Second, you are still merely asserting. You are guilty of specieism. Why should what is good for humanity be better than what is good for any other species? You just assume by your own authority that we should do what is good for mankind (even though you deny that very thing in specific instances, showing the inconsistency of your position). Until you provide a reason that we ought to take care of humanity first, then your assertion that we ought to is just that: an assertion. It is your personal opinion. It doesn't matter if you learned that opinion from your parents, your culture, your religion, or if your biology demands you think that way. Just because your parents, culture, religion, or biology tells you something is true doesn't make it true. To make a statement true (or false) based on its origin is called a genetic fallacy. This is why I said that humanity was designed for a purpose, there is no such thing as objective morality, because any value you assume is just that -- some value you've assumed.

No.  Your reasoning is still "I like that god said so".  Furthermore, as stated above, you cannot impose that designer and his design without invoking "it's good for your species, you were designed that way".

Wrong.

1. I may not like "what God said"
2. "What God said" is called the Divine Command theory, which I have explicitly rejected in this thread in my conversation with you. Again, PS, I insist that you consider the arguments I am making, not the ones of your own invention.
3. Even if DC were true, and it isn't, I've already said we don't get our morality from the Bible, which is apparently where we would find out "what God said."
4. You make the same mistake Sophus made earlier. Just because something brings a benefit does not mean that the reason it ought to be done is to achieve that benefit. Second, there are plenty of things that would benefit the species that are still wrong. Therefore, whatever our morality is based on, it is not "what is good for your species." I have again expressly denied this.

Now, PS, I believe we are having a good conversation. However, if you are going to continue with the insults and attribute positions to me that I do not hold, I can only assume that you have no interest in this conversation at all and that you're really just pulling a giant troll on me. Can we return to an actual discussion of the ideas I've presented in response to the common objection you and other atheists put forward? Or would you rather just get on with personal insults and talk about why we both disagree with certain ideas that neither one of us hold to, because I see absolutely no reason to engage in the latter.

[Jac3510]

Hold the phone, "slavery is wrong?!" I wouldn't have known that having only read the Bible.

Yes, slavery is wrong. If you want to open another thread on the Bible and slavery, feel free. It has no relevance to the point of this thread.

Besides, Sophus, you know better. You know that I don't think we get morality from the Bible. I expect more from you.

[Sophus]

Hold the phone, "slavery is wrong?!" I wouldn't have known that having only read the Bible.

Yes, slavery is wrong. If you want to open another thread on the Bible and slavery, feel free. It has no relevance to the point of this thread.

Besides, Sophus, you know better. You know that I don't think we get morality from the Bible. I expect more from you.

Of course I don't but, don't you? Isn't that what Christians think? Or do you think the Bible does indeed have some horribly flawed ethics?

[Jac3510]

Of course I don't but, don't you? Isn't that what Christians think? Or do you think the Bible does indeed have some horribly flawed ethics?

I think many of the ethics described in the Bible are flawed. I don't think any of the prescribed ethics are flawed so long as the prescriptions are applied only to the individuals to whom they were prescribed. In any case, I don't get my ethics from Scripture. It's rather interesting that no systematic theology has a unit called "Biblical Ethics."

Beyond that, however, I think that we should open a separate thread, because there are to very distinct issues that need to be discussed:

1. What is the relationship between ethics and Scripture?
2. Do (any of) the ethical prescriptions in the Bible turn out to be unethical?

Both are interesting questions. Neither have anything to do with whether a good God is compatible with the concept of Hell.

Returning to my previous point, which is relevant to this thread, slavery is wrong. What Americans did not blacks is something we should be eternally ashamed of. People who say slavery was right or justified are mistaken. They are objectively wrong, because slavery was wrong. That doesn't have to be "demonstrated." It's a self-evident fact. It flows necessarily from the fact that all men are created equal.

The very fact, however, that we can say that people some people are and were mistaken in their assessment about whether or not slavery is wrong goes to prove that morality is, in fact, objective. People can only be wrong about things that true irrespective of personal opinion. If I argue that two and two make five, you don't say that's just my opinion. You say I'm mistaken. If I say that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, if you disagree, you don't say I'm mistaken. You say that is just my opinion. When I say slavery is good and wonderful and ought to be practiced, you don't tell me we simply have a disagreement in personal opinion. You tell me that I'm wrong--horribly and terribly wrong. When a Christian argues that God roasts people in Hell because He is pissed at them for not cowering before Him in fear and stroking His ego by telling Him how awesome He is, and you tell them that such a conception is downright wrong and evil, you aren't saying that you just don't happen to be fond of that conception. You are saying that conception really is bad and immoral. You aren't saying that you and a bunch of your friends disagree. You're saying it really is bad no matter how many people disagree. If you found yourself in a country or society where everyone believed that, you would still tell them that they were all moral buffoons, because such a conception is just wrong.

Right and wrong really do exist in a real, objective way. The constant objection to punitive Hell as evil proves it. Since independent, objective morality can only exist if a moral God exists, and since independent, objective morality clearly exists, it logically and necessarily follows that a moral God exists. If, then, we believe that this God granted human beings moral agency, then everything I've argued in this thread about Hell must necessarily be true.

And that is why I think this is an important discussion. The objection against Hell as evil actually serves as powerful evidence of its necessity . . .

[PoopShoot]

You had argued that I failed to support my claim about why goodness comes from God. That is what I was responding to. I don't have to prove the statement is true before deciding if it is consistent with another position, which is what this thread is about.

You are jumping from "1: god is good" to "3: people, therefore, require god in order to be good".  I'm still looking for "2: ?????"

As far as your citation of the Bible goes, it has nothing to do with our discussion. I'm obviously a Christian who believes the Bible is true, but the subject matter is whether or not the Christian conception of God is consistent with the concept of Hell.

It's not irrelevant.  I'm pointing out to you that your own book, which you claim is the word of god, contradicts your assertion that people are automatically evil.  It is directly relevant because it removes your assertion that people are inherently evil and therefore hell will be bad because of the people there instead of it being made that way by god.

If we start getting into "Yeah, but this verse says this and that verse says that" we are ignoring the main argument. We can have another discussion on whether or not the Bible is consistent on the matter, but the point remains, that is a different argument.

Then let's just stick to the parts that are relevant to this conversation, like the part that says god created people good.

Finally, you've failed to understand the basic argument if you think "God is good" is one of the premises. It is not. It is one of the assumptions.

And the relevance is what now?  I never said god wasn't good (there's that reading comprehension again), I said that god being good and people being good are separate ideas and that you need to link them.  You still haven't shown HOW god being good makes people good or how people STOP being good without god.

Second, it does address the issue of Hell. You wanted to know how it was that Hell could be a natural consequence and not punitive. I am explaining it. Moral agency requires the existence of both good and evil; the former is rooted in God's nature; rejection of good is therefore the rejection of God's nature; and therefore, rejection of God results in the complete severance from all goodness. Your choice has a consequence--a logically necessary consequence that God Himself cannot change.

Still addressing moral agency and NOT hell.  Protip: moral agency is thing, hell is place.  The thing of moral agency doesn't require the existence of the place of hell.

Demonstrate this and explain why you feel this way.

It's self-evident. You know its wrong. I know its wrong, just like we both know that torturing babies is wrong.

It is not axiomatic.  Demonstrate it or move on.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that slavery--the kind we had in America for years--is not wrong?

Which kind we had in America for years?  The Thomas Jefferson "my what a nice piece of negro ass, I'm going to impregnate it" kind, the "I'm poor and Europe sucks so I'm going to be a slave for a decade in exchange for passage on a boat" kind, the poor farmer "I really need some help and am short a few kids, so I'm going to purchase a guy who I will treat well" kind, the cotton plantation "beat them niggers to death if they don't perform" kind or one of the many other kinds I hadn't thought of?  Are we excluding the foreign prisoner of war kind that god's "chosen people" practiced?  How about the well treated workforce that all ancient empires utilized?  Are we excluding kidnapping into sex slavery?  You haven't really defined the parameters of what we're talking about here, "slavery" is a pretty wide term that can only really be a catch all in the view of a binary and absolute morality system.  I never claimed that morality was either absolute or binary.  If you wish to talk about slavery, we can, but it might get kind of deep, considering all the various circumstances that can be attached.

The very fact that you agree that some things are wrong that would still be beneficial to society is enough to demonstrate that your moral value is no moral value at all.

Negative.  You deny a full half of my stated basis of morality.

If you want to talk about intellectual honesty, then you can admit that and be honest or ignore it and be dishonest.

Coming from a man who denys half of my argument in order to call me dishonest, I don't really hold that as an insult.

There is a reason utilitarianism isn't widely held by ethicists these days.

And I care why?

And here you contradict yourself. First you say you agree with me that it would be wrong to do something that benefits society, and here you assert again that what benefits society is the basis of what is right.

Your inability to understand the balance between individual benefit and social benefit, which I have never denied despite the fact that you overlooked it, is not my problem.

Second, you are still merely asserting. You are guilty of specieism. Why should what is good for humanity be better than what is good for any other species?

Because I'm human.  Why is it ok to eat a cow?  Because I'm not a cow.  You are guilty of the same thing.

You just assume by your own authority that we should do what is good for mankind (even though you deny that very thing in specific instances, showing the inconsistency of your position).

Not inconsistency on my part: intentional ignorance on yours.

Until you provide a reason that we ought to take care of humanity first, then your assertion that we ought to is just that: an assertion. It is your personal opinion.

My reason?  We're humans.  Until you provide a reason why we should follow your version of morality, you are making assertions as well.  My reason is demonstrable, is yours?

1. I may not like "what God said"

Irrelevant.

2. "What God said" is called the Divine Command theory, which I have explicitly rejected in this thread in my conversation with you. Again, PS, I insist that you consider the arguments I am making, not the ones of your own invention.

Did or did god not invent morality?  did god or did god not "write it on our hearts"?  If not divine command, whence the goodness of god found in mankind?

Second, there are plenty of things that would benefit the species that are still wrong.

Name three, be specific.  Include WHY they are inherently immoral.

However, if you are going to continue with the insults and attribute positions to me that I do not hold, I can only assume that you have no interest in this conversation at all and that you're really just pulling a giant troll on me.

I didn't insult you, but I have been known to troll, though I'm not doing so intentionally at the moment.  I'd say I'm sorry that you feel insulted, but I'd be lying.  I really just don't care that you feel that way.  Is that wrong?

[i_am_i]

The objection against Hell as evil actually serves as powerful evidence of its necessity . . .

What about the objection against anything that is just made up? Does that serve as powerful evidence of its necessity? The answer is yes, it does. Hell is absolutely required by the Church with a capital C to keep getting people's money and to keep asses sitting on pews in churches, and that's why it was made up. It's necessary.

Hell is Christianity's muscle. It's the guys who come around asking for this month's protection money. You wouldn't want anything bad to happen to your family, would you? So, pay up.

Without hell what is there to be afraid of?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump, try again?

To what purpose?

[Davin]

Davin,
[spoiler:2a37kvwg]

Sure, there is this part of my post (slightly corrected):

So when there is insufficient evidence to believe in this Jesus Christ as the one true god/savior/half-ling/whatever, then we must suffer for it? Why punish people for not believing in something they cannot be sure is accurate and as close to reality as possible?

Before you go onto a tangent about it not really being god punishing the people, remember god created everything (at least in this hypothetical). Even if it was a consequence beyond the power of god to prevent the suffering the people he created: not ever existing is much better than being eternally tortured.

Here's an example:

Take a bunch of infants and dump them in a large room with food and water, leave them there for ten years with no contact to the outside world. Then go in and any one of those children who doesn't believe in you, send them to be tortured for the rest of their lives.

I believe we are making real progress if for no other reason than you are responding to my comments exactly as I would make them. First, why are we punished for rejecting God? As you note, it isn't a punishment. It's a consequence. But didn't God set it up that way? As you note, God couldn't have made it any other way. Then shouldn't God have not created? After all, isn't non-existence better than eternal suffering?

To this, I simply reply that while I understand the point, I think that on a fundamental level you question might actually be meaningless, and if the question itself isn't meaningless, any answer I might attempt would be meaningless.

When you suggest that it would be "better" to not-exist, what is the "you" that benefits? How can you say, "It would be better if I didn't exist at all"? If you didn't exist, then there would be no "you" to be better off. The moment we start trying to use words to compare the benefits of non-existence, we immediately start thinking in terms of existence. To follow old Parmenides, if non-existence is possible, we can't think about it, so any discussion on the matter is really useless. Or to steal a line from atheist apologists, if non-existence were better off than eternal suffering, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

In that case, I take the answer to your last question to be, "The question either has no meaning, or, if it does, and since if it were so we would not be here, I can only assume that, no, non-existence is not better than suffering (whatever that means).[/spoiler:2a37kvwg]

So you didn't respond to what I said, that's fine with me, you have every right to respond as you wish.

Suffering is supposed to be bad right? So if the option is either suffering or not ever existing, then not ever existing is neutral and neutral is better than bad.

I find this whole thing terribly lacking on a connection of logic: how does accepting Christ save one from hell? It's a choice of god to remove it's goodness from people thereby causing eternal suffering just because this god created some people that can't believe in anything without sufficient evidence.

Another problem is that in all eternity, people would get used their state and then no longer be "suffering" especially if it can't get any worse.

What harm would come from god not removing his goodness from them? This is another problem, god could isolate the people that require evidence for what they accept as true without causing suffering to those that lived good lives, however this god chooses to remove it's goodness and cause suffering.

Take a bunch of infants and dump them in a large room with food and water, leave them there for ten years with no contact to the outside world. Then go in and any one of those children who doesn't believe in you and specifically you, send them to be tortured for the rest of their lives. This is essentially what this god is doing.