Why Jac has no (logical) problem with Hell

[Sophus]

Sophus.

You disagreed with both premises of my argument:

1. If morality is objective, God exists
2. Morality is objective
3. Therefore, God exists.

With regard to the first, I've already given a brief explanation here as well as a detailed explanation in the thread on Pascal's Wager. If morality is evolved, it is still completely subjective, because whatever value system it is based upon is still absolutely personal. It wouldn't matter if everyone agreed on it or not, the value system would still necessarily be personal. To argue broad agreement makes it objective would be a logical fallacy called an ad populum fallacy.

With respect to the second, if you think God roasting people in Hell forever is actually wrong, then you believe in objective morality. The question is whether or not you are willing to accept the necessary consequences of that.

I had so many other questions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

With respect to the second, if you think God roasting people in Hell forever is actually wrong, then you believe in objective morality. The question is whether or not you are willing to accept the necessary consequences of that.

And if you think eternal torture can be good, you are practicing moral relativity.  So what's your point?  You seem to accept as axiomatic that objective morality can only emanate from a deity.  I don't see that to be the case; it seems to me that it could be the result of genetics as well, which is not an argument ad populum.  It's more ad biologicum.  

[PoopShoot]

The funny thing is that objective morality CAN'T exist from a deity.  If god decides what is moral, morality isn't objective, it's subjective to him.  I can and do accept objective morality and all that it entails, including circumstances.

[Davin]

With regard to the first, I've already given a brief explanation here as well as a detailed explanation in the thread on Pascal's Wager. If morality is evolved, it is still completely subjective, because whatever value system it is based upon is still absolutely personal. It wouldn't matter if everyone agreed on it or not, the value system would still necessarily be personal. To argue broad agreement makes it objective would be a logical fallacy called an ad populum fallacy.

Why do you always have difficulty with fallacies?

Ad populum would have been if Sophus said something like, "since the majority of people say that there is objective morality then there is objective morality." However Sophus said something far different, "Why couldn't it mean we all evolved an objective sense of morality?" Not only is it not fallacy because he's just asking a question, but doesn't even appeal to majority in any way. It would be the equivelant of saying, "Why couldn't we all evolve the ability to feel pain?" Please do not just throw around the names of fallacies without first knowing what they are.

[Davin]

As HS notes, I'm simply discussing the consistency of Hell. Atheists very often make the claim that Hell isn't consistent with a good God. To go back now and say, "Well you aren't giving evidence that Hell is real" is to move the goalposts.

No, let's talk about the repeated objection that Hell is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that God is good. If we prove a moral God exists, then we go on from there to prove that Hell exists. That, however, is a different debate entirely. To insist on it at this juncture is, as I have already pointed out, to move the goalposts.

To claim someone as moving the goal posts, you have to consider the opponent you're debating, not a completely different person in the debate. You would have to show that that specific opponent is attempting to move goal posts, not comparing one person to another person. Each one of us is arguing from our own perspective, it's not a discussion between us and you, it's many discussions between you and many different people. It's very bad form to say that Martin TK and Asmodean are trying to move goal posts because someone completely different said something else.

It would probably be more appropriate to say that, that is not in the scope of this thread, it is off topic or anything other than moving goal posts... because they haven't moved any goal posts, they planted them there when they made their posts. It was Martin TK's  and Asmodean's first posts in this thread, so not even a chance of goal post moving.

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

I've read most of the replies to your posts.  You almost always understand what other folks are saying.  However, there have been a couple of times you just don't understand what I'm trying to say.  I'm using plain English. What's not to understand?  

You said an essence is what a thing is right? I can cut my hair, cut off my limbs and poke my eyes out but I will still me me.  I can replace all these things with artificial parts and I would still be me.  Those are accidental properties.  However, once you change a part of my immutable definitive self, I am annihilated.   This is so because I can't rightly say "I am not me".  Obviously whatever I am, I'm identical to myself.  This altered essence that goes to Hell when I die isn't me.  You are trying to represent this altered essence as me with some changes.  You can't do that.  

humblesmurph's essence=  XXXX4  "humblesmurph's"  essence in Hell= XXXX3  What you are trying to say is that XXXX4=XXXX3.  That is clearly false.  XXXX4 and XXXX3 necessarily represent two different things.  

It seems to me that you are doing a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid an unsavory consequence.  

I'm not even asking you to prove the Bible is correct, I know you can't do that.  I'm saying that Hell does contain flames.   The bible says flames.  There's my proof.  You say that the flames aren't literal.  Prove it.  Is there no passage in the Bible where 'fire' or 'flames' are used literally?  Are you really telling me that every time I see the words 'fire' or 'flames' in the Bible I'm supposed to deduce that the author isn't referring to actual fire or flames?  Or just when it is convenient for your definition of Hell?  

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain why you think an altered essence doesn't mean annihilation or show me how your version of Hell doesn't require the changing of my essence.  Furthermore, if you still feel up to it, give some proof that Hell doesn't contain fire.  I'm not sure if you really don't know that you haven't even tried to prove this yet or if you are just pretending for the sake of an argument.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The exact form of Hell is irrelevant to the discussion, although it is very relevant to the truth-value of the Bible, and hence Christianity.

[humblesmurph]

The exact form of Hell is irrelevant to the discussion, although it is very relevant to the truth-value of the Bible, and hence Christianity.

I never thought of Hell as anything other than an infinitely horrible place where bad people spend eternity.  That place may have any number of specific characteristics.  I'm just wondering why Jac is so adamant about there being no fire in Hell.

[Sophus]

The funny thing is that objective morality CAN'T exist from a deity.  If god decides what is moral, morality isn't objective, it's subjective to him.  I can and do accept objective morality and all that it entails, including circumstances.

"Including circumstances" makes sense but how can it really be objective when morality always comes down to how somebody would feel? Feelings aren't objective.

[PoopShoot]

The funny thing is that objective morality CAN'T exist from a deity.  If god decides what is moral, morality isn't objective, it's subjective to him.  I can and do accept objective morality and all that it entails, including circumstances.

"Including circumstances" makes sense but how can it really be objective when morality always comes down to how somebody would feel? Feelings aren't objective.

I don't often consider feelings to really play into it.  I generally mean circumstances to be just that.  For me, killing is justified in self defense, I don't care whether the guy considered it to be relief to his homicidal desires that he had to kill someone in defense.  I consider neutralizing an enemy to be a legitimate form of killing as well, again, I don't care if the guy joined merely for the privilege of killing people.  I don't think it should be considered statutory rape to have sex with a girl who has used a fake ID to deceive the guy (or an underage guy who has deceived a girl).  I don't care if the guy has a gut feeling and goes with it anyway, the circumstances are that the girl defrauded him and seduced him.  I can think of few situations where the personal feelings of the individual should really matter.  Outside of laws, morality is all but useless and even when it is useful, it's merely a form of etiquette.

[Sophus]

The funny thing is that objective morality CAN'T exist from a deity.  If god decides what is moral, morality isn't objective, it's subjective to him.  I can and do accept objective morality and all that it entails, including circumstances.

"Including circumstances" makes sense but how can it really be objective when morality always comes down to how somebody would feel? Feelings aren't objective.

I don't often consider feelings to really play into it.  I generally mean circumstances to be just that.  For me, killing is justified in self defense, I don't care whether the guy considered it to be relief to his homicidal desires that he had to kill someone in defense.  I consider neutralizing an enemy to be a legitimate form of killing as well, again, I don't care if the guy joined merely for the privilege of killing people.  I don't think it should be considered statutory rape to have sex with a girl who has used a fake ID to deceive the guy (or an underage guy who has deceived a girl).  I don't care if the guy has a gut feeling and goes with it anyway, the circumstances are that the girl defrauded him and seduced him.  I can think of few situations where the personal feelings of the individual should really matter.  Outside of laws, morality is all but useless and even when it is useful, it's merely a form of etiquette.

What I mean is morality (or real ethics) is built upon empathy. Any action we think would be a wrong doing against us comes down to the fact that we fear having whatever it is done to us. If the fear is gone, there is no sanction of wrong doing. Morality exists purely in the mind so it seems as though it would have to be defined as subjective.

[PoopShoot]

What I mean is morality (or real ethics) is built upon empathy. Any action we think would be a wrong doing against us comes down to the fact that we fear having whatever it is done to us. If the fear is gone, there is no sanction of wrong doing. Morality exists purely in the mind so it seems as though it would have to be defined as subjective.

I disagree with that assessment.  Morality/ethics are what originally served the function that laws now do.  Empathy facilitates it, but is only a part.  I would argue that what seems to be empathy based is actually objectively pragmatic and that empathy serves to bring that to the individual.

[Martin TK]

Jac, your claim of "moving the goal posts" is preposterous because it is YOU making the claims, it is therefore upon you to make sense of what you are saying.  IN other words, you can't make a claim about hell and morality without discussing the morality of your own god.  What I seem to see is that there are two moral values here, those that are applied to man and those that are implied for god.  God's morality is something that he alone has power over, and then he alone has the judgemental power over the morality as applied to man.  So, HE can do whatever he wishes and call it moral, whereas, man can only do what HE tells us is moral.  And with all that, there is NOTHING outside the bible to provide any evidences of this, at all.

[humblesmurph]

What I mean is morality (or real ethics) is built upon empathy. Any action we think would be a wrong doing against us comes down to the fact that we fear having whatever it is done to us. If the fear is gone, there is no sanction of wrong doing. Morality exists purely in the mind so it seems as though it would have to be defined as subjective.

I disagree with that assessment.  Morality/ethics are what originally served the function that laws now do.  Empathy facilitates it, but is only a part.  I would argue that what seems to be empathy based is actually objectively pragmatic and that empathy serves to bring that to the individual.

Objectively pragmatic?  Interesting. That seems to make sense regarding morality on a whole. Morality serves as the basis for society. Without rules of engagement, the whole thing falls apart.  Poop, would you say that individual moral rules can be objectively pragmatic?  Do you assess the value of a moral claim based on it's affect on society?

[Sophus]

What I mean is morality (or real ethics) is built upon empathy. Any action we think would be a wrong doing against us comes down to the fact that we fear having whatever it is done to us. If the fear is gone, there is no sanction of wrong doing. Morality exists purely in the mind so it seems as though it would have to be defined as subjective.

I disagree with that assessment.  Morality/ethics are what originally served the function that laws now do.  Empathy facilitates it, but is only a part.  I would argue that what seems to be empathy based is actually objectively pragmatic and that empathy serves to bring that to the individual.

If you keep picking a "moral law" apart what you'll get down to is why having that law violated is a bad thing. Why don't you want someone stealing stuff everyday? Because he might steal your stuff next. Why is that bad? There's a frightening feeling of insecurity if anyone can freely take any of your possessions. You might not even survive in such a world. That feeling cannot be vindicated as being either right or wrong because it's just a feeling. Humblesmurph is right that it is the basis of society, but that doesn't make it objective.