Happy Atheist Forum

So I promised Thump I'd start a discussion on this, so here we are. Let me start with a few preliminary issues to frame the discussion. First, Hell is a controversial topic for everyone in all camps. Let me start out by saying that whatever the popular view of Hell is, there is no consensus of any kind on the subject that I am aware of. The thread has been titled to reflect this. This is what I understand the biblical and philosophical concept of Hell to be, and thus why I don't have a problem with it. As such, everything I say about Hell is my own take based on my own understanding of the subject matter. It would be, however, rather redundant to continually say, "In my view . . ." Let it be understood that I am offering my view and mine alone. Others are responsible for theirs. Feel free to point out that many in disagree with my understanding of the subject.

Second, let me make a few direct statements up front about what Hell is not:

1. Hell is not a place where we are punished for sin.
2. Hell is not a place people go because they deserve be there.
3. Regardless of the view of Hell one takes, no argument will or can make us "feel good" about it (it is, after all, Hell).
4. Hell is not some metaphorical concept (that would certainly be an easy way out). It is real.

Finally, I am using the word "Hell" in its popular sense. Technically, "Hell" is the English equivalent to the Greek Hades or the Hebrew Sheol, neither of which are, biblically speaking, where people will spend eternity. Hell is shorthand for the Lake of Fire or Gehenna. Space and time don't permit a detailed discussion of each. Suffice it to say here that Hades and Sheol are the temporary abode of the dead until the final judgment.

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

My major thesis is that Hell exists as a real place of eternal torment, but that our moral confusion arises because we take that torment to be punitive when it fact it is simply consequential. In other words, we don't suffer in Hell because we are being punished for our sins (up to and including not believing in Jesus); rather,those who die without Christ will be tortured by their own natures, and this state of affairs is that which we call Hell.

This discussion presumes a perfectly good moral God. If such a God does not exist, or if Hell is incompatible with such a God's existence, the entire notion can be dropped. As this thread is about Hell and not the existence of God, I will ask any discussions regarding this first assumption be held for another thread. In other words, we are arguing: "If a perfectly moral God exists, then Hell is . . ."

Most people start with justice and argue that a perfectly good God must punish sin, and since God is infinite, then sins against Him are infinite, and therefore require an infinite punishment since any punishment must match its crime. They then argue that Jesus, who as God is infinite, took this infinite punishment on Himself so that we don't have to, and therefore, anyone who believes in Him can be saved from God's wrath. I think that is true insofar as it goes, but I don't think it helps our case, since if Jesus did take on the infinite punishment for us, then there would be no punishment left for those of us who don't believe! (For more on this, see this paper (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2006i/4_hodges.pdf) by Zane Hodges.) So the basis of Hell cannot be punishment for sin. It must be something else.

That something else is found not in the legal effect of sin, which is death, but its practical effect, which is corruption. The reason is that all that is good is found in God. Just as darkness is really just a lack of light, evil is actually a lack of goodness. To sin is to act in a way that lacks love; to love is good, and all goodness is rooted in God, so love is rooted God, from which it follows that to act in a way that lacks love is to act in a way that is contrary to God's nature. Sin, then, can contain no goodness in it as it is fundamentally rooted in selfishness and is opposed to the source of all goodness. Thus, every sinful act makes one a little bit less like God. Each act becomes a permanent part of who we are, of our history, and that act is devoid of God's goodness. Over our lives, our sin means there is less and less goodness, and more and more evil. Acting according to God's will, then, leads to love, joy, peace, and harmony. Acting selfishly leads to bitterness, anger, slander, and violence.

The Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection at the end of time. The Greek concept of substance-dualism, that we are really just ghosts living in a machine called our body--is thoroughly unbiblical in my view. Human beings are fundamentally physical, and our existence will always be in a body. At the Cross, Jesus took care of our sin, but more importantly, He became the first human being to be resurrected into His eternal body. All God's saints will be raised following Jesus with glorified bodies as well. Those who rejected Him, however, will be raised as well, only they will not be raised with bodies like Jesus. How could they? Jesus' body is completely good, completely oriented towards God. As we all can attest, our bodies are oriented towards our selves. Those who are raised with Christ will be given a body that matches their inward disposition - they are for Christ and for God, and their bodies will reflect that. Yet those who are raised without knowing Him will have bodies that match their own dispositions - they are for themselves, which is fundamentally evil in that there will be no goodness in them.

Now, it is here we see the practical effect of sin is not only temporal, but also eternal. Granted that sin brings destruction in our present lives (alcoholics and liars can attest to that), the corruption will continue in their final bodies. Imagine what it would mean to have no goodness of any kind: no love, no joy, no peace. Imagine an existence completely and totally consumed by the self. In this life, though we may be fallen, we are still in some sense the very image of God. We have the moral law of God written on our hearts. Though we are selfish, there is a very real part of us that longs to do what is right. We do genuinely seek the good, but since all goodness is rooted in God, to seek the good is to seek God. God is active every moment in our lives today, but in that eternal state, such activity will cease. In that resurrection, no one will seek the good at all, for what little reason we have to seek good in our present bodies, even that will be removed. We will be turned over completely and totally to ourselves.

C. S. Lewis once said that God is the kind of God to whom in the end we will say, "Thy will be done" or in the end He will say to us, "Thy will be done." Those  in Hell are those who have lived their lives for themselves, who have asked God to leave them alone. Finally, He will. And in that state, they will be severed from absolutely all connections with goodness.

Such an existence is a terrifying thought: an eternity of anger, hostility, hatred, lust, envy, strife, bitterness, terror, and all things evil. They will be completely bent toward themselves. Can you imagine meeting a person who cared only for themselves in the absolute degree? Imagine all that is good and negate it. There will be torment, but it will be self-inflicted. The fires of Hell are not literal. They are symbolic terms for the unimaginable anguish those there will feel, but that anguish will be just as real as if the fires were real. It has been said by some atheists, even on this very board, that they would give God an ear full and walk off to burn forever. Such a statement is more right than anyone could possibly guess. Every aspect of goodness in our lives comes only because we are in some distant way still connected with God. But in that state, all such ties will be severed. There will only be the absolute negation of good.

I'll close with one more thought.

Hell is not simply a future experience. There is a very real sense in which people today can experience a taste of Hell. Those who have suffered from depression, anger problems, or any other such emotional struggles know well that emotional pain can be far more severe than physical pain. Such torment is literally a taste of Hell, because at their core, they are rooted in a lack of something good, be it happiness, contentment, peace, or whatever. Those good things are only found in God. In the same way, Heaven can be tasted today. Unconditional love, happiness, joy, contentment, peace, acceptance . . . all of these are good things that are rooted in God. Those who know Him can know those things perfectly and permanently in their resurrection.

God did not make any of us for Hell. It is the natural consequence of rejecting Him, because to reject Him is to reject the essence of goodness. God will not force Himself on us, and so those who walk away from good are left only with themselves--an eternity of absolutely non-goodness. Hell is about the only term that would suffice to describe such a state.

If god is omnipotent we cannot change his plans.  Calvin was right: omnipotence demands predestination.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"If god is omnipotent we cannot change his plans.  Calvin was right: omnipotence demands predestination.

We can deal with Calvinism and predestination later. I firmly reject his system of thought. Rather than talk about his, let's talk about what you asked me about: my thoughts on Hell. You wanted to know how God could sentence billions of His children to Hell. You have my answer. I'm looking forward to your comments.

God created a place.  God had the option not to.  God granted an eternal soul.  God had the option to make the soul only eternal in the case of salvation.  The "natural consequences" of one's actions are dictated and engineered by god.  Hell is a place of torture by nature.  God chose that nature.  Therefore god CREATED a torture chamber that is BY NATURE a torture chamber and god made men in a way wherein they will end up there.  God further added to that by making sin heritable by one's offspring.

Quote from: "Jac3510"So I promised Thump I'd start a discussion on this, so here we are. Let me start with a few preliminary issues to frame the discussion. First, Hell is a controversial topic for everyone in all camps. Let me start out by saying that whatever the popular view of Hell is, there is no consensus of any kind on the subject that I am aware of. The thread has been titled to reflect this. This is what I understand the biblical and philosophical concept of Hell to be, and thus why I don't have a problem with it. As such, everything I say about Hell is my own take based on my own understanding of the subject matter. It would be, however, rather redundant to continually say, "In my view . . ." Let it be understood that I am offering my view and mine alone. Others are responsible for theirs. Feel free to point out that many in disagree with my understanding of the subject.

Second, let me make a few direct statements up front about what Hell is not:

1. Hell is not a place where we are punished for sin.

[All Biblical citations are from the NKJV as published by the Gideon's Association.  Unless otherwise noted, all emphases are added by me.  Additionally, in order to keep post-length to reasonable standards, I shall only respond to certain statements, and will edit out those portions with which I agree, or those which are unimportant. -- Thump]

Thessalonians 1:8, 9:  

Quote8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know god, and on those who don't obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Quote9  They shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power

Quote from: "Jack"2. Hell is not a place people go because they deserve be there.

The corollary to this is that undeserving people are roasting.

QuoteMy major thesis is that Hell exists as a real place of eternal torment, but that our moral confusion arises because we take that torment to be punitive when it fact it is simply consequential. In other words, we don't suffer in Hell because we are being punished for our sins (up to and including not believing in Jesus); rather,those who die without Christ will be tortured by their own natures, and this state of affairs is that which we call Hell.

Fair enough.  Evidence?

QuoteThis discussion presumes a perfectly good moral God. If such a God does not exist, or if Hell is incompatible with such a God's existence, the entire notion can be dropped.

This is a fatuous presumption, as I've shown in another thread. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=84226#p84226)

QuoteAs this thread is about Hell and not the existence of God, I will ask any discussions regarding this first assumption be held for another thread. In other words, we are arguing: "If a perfectly moral God exists, then Hell is . . ."

Well, the existence of hell raises questions about god's morality anyway.  It will be discussed, it is germane, and while I will agree for the purpose of this discussion that god exists (in order to avoid clunky qualifiers littering each post), I will not stipulate that this god is perfectly moral.  

QuoteMost people start with justice and argue that a perfectly good God must punish sin, and since God is infinite, then sins against Him are infinite, and therefore require an infinite punishment since any punishment must match its crime. They then argue that Jesus, who as God is infinite, took this infinite punishment on Himself so that we don't have to, and therefore, anyone who believes in Him can be saved from God's wrath. I think that is true insofar as it goes, but I don't think it helps our case, since if Jesus did take on the infinite punishment for us, then there would be no punishment left for those of us who don't believe! (For more on this, see this paper (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2006i/4_hodges.pdf) by Zane Hodges.) So the basis of Hell cannot be punishment for sin. It must be something else.

Where is the morality of transferral of guilt?  And how, exactly, is that done?  Is it just a matter of your god saying, "okay, it's cool, he's dead, you're safe for now, I'll forgive your sins because you crucified him"?  That seems awfully whimsical.

And yes, hell cannot be punitive in nature, I agree.  Punishment is a meaningless concept without redemption, and there can be no redemption when the punishment is eternal.

QuoteThat something else is found not in the legal effect of sin, which is death, but its practical effect, which is corruption. The reason is that all that is good is found in God. Just as darkness is really just a lack of light, evil is actually a lack of goodness.

There are sins of omission, and sins of commission.  How does this square with what you're saying here?

QuoteTo sin is to act in a way that lacks love; to love is good, and all goodness is rooted in God, so love is rooted God, from which it follows that to act in a way that lacks love is to act in a way that is contrary to God's nature.

You are assuming your god's goodness. Please demonstrate this, with evidence, rather than logic.  Logic cannot force reality to do anything.  And how is giving someone leukemia "loving"?

QuoteActing according to God's will, then, leads to love, joy, peace, and harmony. Acting selfishly leads to bitterness, anger, slander, and violence.

In Ireland, Palestine, Iraq, and other places, millions have been or currently are acting in what they interpret as "god's will".  Yet people are still blown to pieces regularly in the name of god.  

QuoteThe Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection at the end of time. The Greek concept of substance-dualism, that we are really just ghosts living in a machine called our body--is thoroughly unbiblical in my view. Human beings are fundamentally physical, and our existence will always be in a body. At the Cross, Jesus took care of our sin, but more importantly, He became the first human being to be resurrected into His eternal body.

Okay .... I'm unsure what an eternal body is.  Does it have need of nutriment, and excretion?  Is it DNA-based?  If a man and a woman, in their eternal bodies, have sex, can they have children?  Are those children then immortal, or mortal?

QuoteAll God's saints will be raised following Jesus with glorified bodies as well. Those who rejected Him, however, will be raised as well, only they will not be raised with bodies like Jesus. How could they? Jesus' body is completely good, completely oriented towards God. As we all can attest, our bodies are oriented towards our selves. Those who are raised with Christ will be given a body that matches their inward disposition - they are for Christ and for God, and their bodies will reflect that. Yet those who are raised without knowing Him will have bodies that match their own dispositions - they are for themselves, which is fundamentally evil in that there will be no goodness in them.

This is word salad.  What do you mean when you say "They will be given a body that matches their inward disposition"?

QuoteC. S. Lewis once said that God is the kind of God to whom in the end we will say, "Thy will be done" or in the end He will say to us, "Thy will be done." Those  in Hell are those who have lived their lives for themselves, who have asked God to leave them alone. Finally, He will. And in that state, they will be severed from absolutely all connections with goodness.

Wait, I thought god didn't want anyone to go to hell.  Couldn't he have done anything to change that outcome?

QuoteSuch an existence is a terrifying thought: an eternity of anger, hostility, hatred, lust, envy, strife, bitterness, terror, and all things evil.

Given its non-existence, it's about as scary as the Boogeyman -- and about as cogent.

QuoteThe fires of Hell are not literal.

Not according to Thessalonians 1:8, quoted above.

QuoteI'll close with one more thought.

Hell is not simply a future experience. There is a very real sense in which people today can experience a taste of Hell. Those who have suffered from depression, anger problems, or any other such emotional struggles know well that emotional pain can be far more severe than physical pain. Such torment is literally a taste of Hell, because at their core, they are rooted in a lack of something good, be it happiness, contentment, peace, or whatever.

Or perhaps that nifty little chemical imbalance in their brain that your god was kind enough to give them.

QuoteThose good things are only found in God. In the same way, Heaven can be tasted today. Unconditional love, happiness, joy, contentment, peace, acceptance . . . all of these are good things that are rooted in God. Those who know Him can know those things perfectly and permanently in their resurrection.

I don't need and god(s) to be good.

QuoteGod did not make any of us for Hell. It is the natural consequence of rejecting Him, because to reject Him is to reject the essence of goodness. God will not force Himself on us, and so those who walk away from good are left only with themselves--an eternity of absolutely non-goodness. Hell is about the only term that would suffice to describe such a state.

Given that this so-called "essence of goodness" espouses genocide, infanticide, and the murder of innocents in order to get at the guilty, I'm pretty sure that no matter how bad hell is, it cannot be half as bad as eternity with such a sick monster.

So yeah, I'm thoroughly unconvinced.  How can you actually believe all this stuff?

Jac,

First, I hope you are never offended by the awkwardness of discussing such things with atheists.  The idea of Hell is absurd regardless of how you try to define it or justify God allowing us to go there.  

That aside, treating this as a coherent, fictional, mythology, I gotta say it seems to me that you are just guessing that Hell is such a bad place.  I know what burning feels like.  But you say that Hell isn't literal burning.  That's a relief.  Burning hurts.  So Hell is the absence of God right?  How do you know what that feels like?  God's been with you your whole life.  But you say God is goodness and Hell is the absence of good for all eternity.  I know from experience that everything that is good is not enjoyable and everything that is is enjoyable is not good.   If there is drinking sexing and cussing down below, sign me up.  

Seriously, your conception of Hell isn't frightening at all.  I would have to imagine myself and everybody I know to be completely different  to even be a little afraid of it.  I hope I can convey this clearly.  I like Thump.  I don't know him very well, but I'd have a beer with the chap.  As a matter of fact, I like most of the atheists that I have encountered.  I know a few Muslims, a couple Hindus and a whole bunch of "not religious but spiritual" types.  They mostly seem like good folks as well.  Your definition of Hell requires me to imagine a place full of all these nice people that are all of a sudden acting much differently in Hell than they did on earth. Without the goodness that God puts in our hearts we'll do all sorts of evil things:

 Whitney wouldn't be a nice lady anymore, she'd be a raging selfish jerk who hands out perma bans for posting links even if you have a thousand posts. Pinkocommie would duct tape my eyes open and make me watch "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" until it wasn't funny anymore. Tank would be raping me up the bum while Sophus feeds me anchovies just for the evilness of it.  I really hate anchovies. PoopShoot would.....You know what, I'm not going to even mention what I think a PoopShoot with no goodness in his heart would do to me.  The whole idea of imagining people acting this way is quite difficult.  The burning bit is a lot easier to grasp and be afraid of.

The kicker is that Hell isn't even punishment.  I can just avoid this maybe bad place by accepting Jesus as my Lord or whatever the technical term is.  God knows all and sees all and He's not even keeping track of the good stuff I do?  I don't get extra credit for helping little old ladies across the street and giving 4% of my income to charity?

Actually I lied.  The kicker is that I'm told there is no sex in Heaven.  Please tell me this isn't so Chris.

That was a good post by humblesmurph, I like it very much. All those nice people going to hell and suddenly acting out of character just because they're there. What an interesting thought, really.

So, Jac, now you've told us your view of hell and you've been right out front with the disclaimer that it's only your view.

Here's where I get lost. Are we supposed to tell you what our views of hell are, or what? I mean, your view is your view. I don't share your view. Now what?

Quote from: "i_am_i"That was a good post by humblesmurph, I like it very much. All those nice people going to hell and suddenly acting out of character just because they're there. What an interesting thought, really.

So, Jac, now you've told us your view of hell and you've been right out front with the disclaimer that it's only your view.

Here's where I get lost. Are we supposed to tell you what our views of hell are, or what? I mean, your view is your view. I don't share your view. Now what?

Haha, I was thinking the same thing!  

Look me up if you're ever in SoCal, 'Smurph, we've got many good local breweries and some pretty gals too.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"PoopShoot would.....You know what, I'm not going to even mention what I think a PoopShoot with no goodness in his heart would do to me.

I might need a quick fap after that post.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi53.tinypic.com%2F2u9sda9.jpg&hash=32c7eb95427a75d77aa23ea3fdbc3e3edd70c0bc)

This is like that fake Einstein argument.

The problem is you know that God is not required for good. Otherwise all atheists, with absolutely no exceptions, really would be horrible immoral demons.

QuoteGod did not make any of us for Hell.

Really? Then why put the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden to start with? Will that tree be in heaven? If not, why? Why not just start from the very beginning with no tree? Saves a lot of people from hell.

An all-powerful God who does not wish for anyone to go to hell is not required to make some arbitrary rule that by not believing in his son that you'll go to hell.

QuoteC. S. Lewis once said that God is the kind of God to whom in the end we will say, "Thy will be done" or in the end He will say to us, "Thy will be done." Those in Hell are those who have lived their lives for themselves, who have asked God to leave them alone. Finally, He will. And in that state, they will be severed from absolutely all connections with goodness.

The answer above answers this too. The arbitrary rule is entirely his.

If everything God makes is goodness, why is there less than great stuff in the world? How do I know he won't screw it up again once in heaven?

Why is my life not a living hell right now? After all, I am already godless.

QuoteThe fires of Hell are not literal.

You know this? When was your last vacation to Hades?

QuoteSuch an existence is a terrifying thought: an eternity of anger, hostility, hatred, lust, envy, strife, bitterness, terror, and all things evil. They will be completely bent toward themselves.

How? Will I be under some sort of mind control? I can be completely content when alone so I am wondering how this happen. Also how you know this will happen.

QuoteCan you imagine meeting a person who cared only for themselves in the absolute degree?

Sounds like God, actually. He's rather arrogant, thinking everything is about him, you know.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"God created a place.  God had the option not to.  God granted an eternal soul.  God had the option to make the soul only eternal in the case of salvation.  The "natural consequences" of one's actions are dictated and engineered by god.  Hell is a place of torture by nature.  God chose that nature.  Therefore god CREATED a torture chamber that is BY NATURE a torture chamber and god made men in a way wherein they will end up there.  God further added to that by making sin heritable by one's offspring.

You offer two objections:

1. God could have not created Hell / God created Hell's torturous nature: But this is answered by the fact that evil is by its nature torturous. Hell is a byproduct of creating sentient beings capable of good, for by definition, any being capable of good must also be capable of evil. Any being, then, that manifests pure evil would have a certain set of experiences, which we call Hell.

2. God could have not created souls to be eternal: A lot of people make this argument, but I don't know that it is true. This goes off in a very, very different direction. I'm inclined to think that everlasting hell is actually morally superior to annihilation. The fundamental issue here is whether or not sanctity-of-life advocates are correct or quality-of-life advocates are. The former reject practices like abortion and euthanasia because human life is fundamentally valuable. The latter may or may not embrace such practices based on the quality of life a person would have (and so, in theory what QoL adv. may reject aborting healthy children but favor allowing the abortion of those with Down's Syndrome). If SoL is morally superior to QoL, then annihilation would go against God's nature, because the only grounds God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life. Suffice it to say, this issue needs to be decided on its own terms, not based on the conclusion we want to draw with reference to Hell. It seems to me, however, that those who uphold SoL are definitely upholding a morally superior position than QoL, because the former sees life as inherently valuable and worthy of respect, whereas the latter sees life as relatively valuable and worthy of respect only in certain situations.

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

Thump, I am not going to line-by-line the responses. As you note, the length gets out of hand and it becomes difficult to answer others who are interested in discussion. I quote where essential, but otherwise, I'll boil your objections down and answer accordingly. If you feel I've missed anything, let me know, and I'll handle it specifically. You raise eight general issues

1. You argue the Bible teaches that the flames of Hell are literal:

Fire is consistently used throughout scripture metaphorically to refer to judgment. This has been called 'transposition,' meaning that things that we know and understand are used to communicate concepts we cannot grasp. For instance, a picture of a house is nothing more than two dimensional shapes, but it represents (often accurately) a three dimensional house. Heavenly language is almost certainly transposed. The street of gold, the gate of pearl, the precious stones -- those terms were used to try to express the splendor and richness of such a place. This is evident in the text itself. Rev. 21:21 says that the main street was pure gold "like transparent glass." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but pure gold is not transparent. John is using the highest of exalted language here he can muster. The same is true of Hell. The most terrifying thing most people could imagine would be being burned alive forever, and so that is the image used to try to convey the concept. Further, this is evident from Jesus' description of Hell when He used the word 'gehenna,' which is the Greek transliteration of the phrase literally meaning "Valley of Hinnom." This valley was Jerusalem's dump. There were always fires burning the garbage that was thrown out. This usage comes from Isa. 66:24.

2. The assumption of a moral God is unjustified even for this thread (though you are willing to discuss the issue on the assumption of God's existence generally):

If God is not assumed to be good, then we may as well just say that God is a cosmic sadist. The problem with God and Hell is that we can't figure out how to reconcile a good God with Hell. If God isn't good, we may as well say, "Because God gets His jollies off by watching people squeal." Obviously, our problem is reconciling a good God with Hell, which is therefore the basis of the assumption.

3. Our guilt cannot be transferred to Jesus on the Cross:

It depends on the analogy used. We talk about debt being transferred regularly, and some people do view sin as a debt. Concerning guilt, Jesus, being a man, served as the representative of all humanity. It isn't so much that He took your guilt (although that was the practical impact) as it was He took humanity's guilt. That concept also plays into justification and resurrection, but those are other issues. In any case, this isn't a direct part of my argument, so you can accept it or reject it as valid however you like. I only brought it up to mention the issue of punishment for finite sins as the common answer so that my own would have a frame of reference. Nothing more.

4. Sins of omission vs. commission

Sins of omission are just as sinful as those of commission in that both have the same root: selfishness. As such, both have the same corrupting nature in both this life and the next.

5. People do evil things in God's name all the time, which calls into question the effects of acting according to God's will leading to goodness

Humans have free will and can say whatever they want. Some can even sincerely believe that they are acting in God's name. It is possible to be wrong; it is also possible to be sincerely wrong. Those actions which do not result in overall goodness should be immediately questioned as to whether or not they are from God or not. Immoral behavior is never from God.

6. What is an eternal body?

A body that never dies. This is just a question about the miraculous being possible. If God created the universe, He would have no problem sustaining life. In fact, this is the very reason that sin brings about death, because when we sin and are separated from God, we are no longer rooted in life. Theologically speaking, we are all dead men walking. Just like a flower dies the moment it is picked and the decay takes several days to set in, so too the human body dies the moment it is severed from God. It simply takes time for the decay to set in.

7. God's ability to keep people from going to Hell

See my response to PS above. Hell is a byproduct of creation. Giving men the ability to do good necessarily entails giving them the ability to do evil. The ability to do evil necessarily entails the possibility of an eternity without God, and since God is fundamentally good, that necessarily means an eternity without the slightest goodness, which is what we would call Hell.

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

HS,

First, I'm never offended by the awkwardness of the conversations. I know that Hell is a moral problem for most atheists, and so I'm offering an explanation. You deserve at least that much. As to whether or not it is absurd, that depends on the logical necessities or lackthereof. If God is fundamentally good, it seems to me that it is the denial of Hell that is fundamentally absurd. And if God is not good, then it doesn't matter anyway, because He may well throw us all into the torture chamber for the fun of it.

Beyond that, you raise two issues.

1. Hell as I describe it doesn't seem so "hellish"

Whether or not I am conveying the picture adequately (there is a reason the biblical writers used fire to explain the anguish), it seems to me that Hell is actually far worse than any of us have ever considered. Imagine for a moment the worst emotional pain you've ever suffered. In my own life, I remember an event so painful that I blacked out from the intensity and found myself curled up on the floor a few minutes later. Now, even in that moment, there was still traceable good. There was hope of restoration and for justice. There was the knowledge that one way or another everything would be okay and we would get through it (five years later, thankfully, that nightmare ended). Try to imagine such a moment, though, with absolutely no goodness of any kind. Think about the angriest you have ever been. Mix that with absolute terror, absolute depression, absolute hopelessness. One by one think of every good thing and negate it absolutely. Kindness becomes pure cruelty. Love becomes pure hatred. Joy becomes pure depression. Peace becomes pure hostility. It's good to have an outlet for such negativity, so imagine there being no outlet and that such feeds on itself, on you. But further, a calm evening is soothing and good. Imagine pure chaos, the everlasting and defining roar of a silence and sense of abandonment so loud it is all you can hear. Where there is no goodness at all there is no order. It is pure chaos.

And the worst part (in my view)? Because such people are turned completely toward themselves, they are incapable of thinking of the good of others. Concepts like justice have only their shadow of a meaning. Such people will be convinced for all of eternity that God is being unfair and unjust. The irony, of course, is that justice and fairness are good, and since they are good, they are rooted in God, so to receive justice, mercy, and love they would merely need to turn to Him, but of course, they cannot and will not, because such turning is itself good.

Simply try to imagine a world that has no goodness. It's difficult, because your whole life you've experienced some level of goodness, even in the worst of times. Just spend some time with it. Think of every good thing and negate it and see what is left.

2. It seems there should be some meritorious system to account for what we've done on earth.

Theologians are divided on the matter. Some think there are "levels" of Hell. I'm not inclined to think there are because that implies that the worse someone is, the worse they deserve, but that gets back into the punishment for sin issue, which I think is a non-issue. Of course, you could view it as a permanent reaping of corruption--the more you sin in this life the more corruption you reap in the next. Again, I'm not inclined to think so, but some argue it is possible.

Christians certainly have a meritorious system for heaven. Not all will be the same. The Bible clearly teaches that we will be rewarded for the good we have done as believers and the evil we have done can cause us to lose those rewards. It doesn't make any sense, though, to apply that same thinking to Hell (at least, I don't think so). I'd be open to the concept if it were put in proper terms, but for now, I see no reason, philosophical or biblical, to think it to be the case.

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

i_am_i,

I presented my view specifically because the charge is often leveled that Hell is incompatible with a good God's existence, and therefore, if Hell is real, God either does not exist or is not good. Now, obviously, if you don't believe in God or Hell, there is nothing to say one way or the other. But for those who think that Hell presents a logical problem for Christianity, I think the view I've put forward here demonstrates why it is not. In sum, again, the suffering in Hell is not punitive; it is consequential.

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

To all,

The logical starting point here is that goodness is rooted in God. We could very easily make this into a moral argument for God's existence as follows:

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

We would defend (1), as we did extensively, by pointing out that if there is no God then all moral statements are simply matters of preference, no matter how widespread that preference may be. All moral statements are built on some value, and if there is no God, then no value is inherently more valuable than another. The only way for morality to be objective is if it is rooted in the essence of a moral God. In other words, if God is Himself good--that is, if goodness is His essential nature--then any creation of His that contained a moral element would necessarily reflect His moral nature. In other words, if God is moral, then He would will moral commands out of that moral nature.

The question, then, is this: is morality objective? More fundamentally, do the words "right" and "wrong" have any inherent meaning? If so, we must affirm that God exists and is inherently good. If, however, He is inherently good, then the argument about Hell I put forward becomes a necessary deduction from the existence of God. The moment we affirm the existence of a good God, we necessarily affirm that where God is not, there is no goodness. If, then, a person can be fundamentally separated from God, then it follows that such a person would be in a state in which there is fundamentally no goodness, and this, we call Hell.

There is, then, a great deal at stake in deciding whether or not good and evil are objectively real. I hold they are, and because I do, I must conclude that a good God exists and that so does Hell as I have described it. Further, whether anyone admits it or not, I would presume moral objectivity in your very argument against Hell. In saying that it is unfair or unjust, you are appealing to an objective moral standard. If there is no such standard, then even God Himself is not good (since the word is meaningless--we all can have differing opinions on what 'good' is). As such, He could throw anyone He wants into a flaming Hell and who is to say He is doing anything 'wrong'? In this view, might does make right!

So the logical conclusion to me is abundantly clear:

1. The words 'good' and 'evil' have objective meaning, and therefore God and Hell both exists;
2. The words 'good' and 'evil' have no objective meaning, in which case Hell, should it exist, serves as no argument against God's existence no matter how heinous it may seem to us.

EDIT:

Sophus, you posted while I was typing this response. I'll get to your comments tomorrow.

Quote1. If morality is objective, God exists
2. Morality is objective
3. Therefore, God exists

I disagree with the first two. Well, actually all three.  

1. Why should we assume such a thing? Why couldn't it mean we all evolved an objective sense of morality?
2. Morality is very very subjective, and depends upon numerous things, both within factors of "nature and nurture".

Quote from: "Jac3510"But this is answered by the fact that evil is by its nature torturous.

I've never tortured anyone.

Sorry but it all reads like a bunch of theologist BS to me.  A LOT of words to say little of nothing that has not been PREACHED from nearly every pulpit in the Christian world, and it's all wrong.

Your entire world view is rightfully yours, but wrongfully viewed.  You are making assumptions for which there is NO evidences at all, NONE.  Your only evidence is found in the bible or from writers who have studied the bible, or from philosophers who have "thought" about hell using the bible.  So by your definition, hell is a consequence of the rejection of god, not from the consequence of sin.  Wow, so a man who has "found" Jesus, been saved, and yet has done horrible things in his life is destined for heaven'; yet a man like myself who has done many good things because I like the way they make me feel, have helped many, many young people get an education, given of my time, talents, and money to charities, and lived a pretty darn boring and normal life, I AM destined for hell because I do not believe in god.  I know you have an answer to this, but is it going to be based on evidences or your view?

Nah, it all smells to "high Heaven" pun intended.

If what is written in the Bible is no longer correct according to modern theologists and Christian philosophers, then why don't they rewrite the Bible and bring out a version that is correct?  As it is right now, we've got a major conflict between the actual texts in the Bible and their actual "meaning". So it is high time to bring out a corrected and updated version of the Bible, to make it more coherent and valid. BTW I'm sure that all Christians would love to have a new edition of the Bible, that no longer contains stuff which are invalid or irrelevant according to modern theology and Christian philosophy. It would give them practically nothing to believe in any more .

Quote from: "Jac3510"i_am_i,

I presented my view specifically because the charge is often leveled that Hell is incompatible with a good God's existence, and therefore, if Hell is real, God either does not exist or is not good. Now, obviously, if you don't believe in God or Hell, there is nothing to say one way or the other. But for those who think that Hell presents a logical problem for Christianity, I think the view I've put forward here demonstrates why it is not. In sum, again, the suffering in Hell is not punitive; it is consequential.

Look, call me J. It says it right there in my signature, "Call me J."

So, call me J.
 
I don't think that Hell with a capital H is a logical problem for Christianity. I think everything in the Christian...whatever it is is a logical problem for Christianity. Religion is a logical problem for any religion.

Of course your idea of logic and my idea of logic are two different things, you being educated and all, no offense intended.

And all you're demonstrating here, once again, is that you're a Christian. We get it, you're a Christian. Nothing that anyone says here is going to change that. So...now what?

Quote from: "Tom62"If what is written in the Bible is no longer correct according to modern theologists and Christian philosophers, then why don't they rewrite the Bible and bring out a version that is correct?  As it is right now, we've got a major conflict between the actual texts in the Bible and their actual "meaning". So it is high time to bring out a corrected and updated version of the Bible, to make it more coherent and valid. BTW I'm sure that all Christians would love to have a new edition of the Bible, that no longer contains stuff which are invalid or irrelevant according to modern theology and Christian philosophy. It would give them practically nothing to believe in any more .

Another Thomas Jefferson?

Jac,

You didn't even answer the most important question, you know, the one about sex in heaven.    In any event, I guess I have a couple of new problems.  You make a decent case that Hell isn't necessarily literal burning with flames and all.  However, you haven't shown that it necessarily isn't.  I'm leaning towards the fire because that is what is mentioned in the Bible.    While I can see a reason to try to reconcile some of the wild claims made by the Bible with what we know about the physical world when dealing with the physical world, it seems no such reconciliation is necessary when speaking of Heaven an Hell.  After all, Hell and Heaven are places that don't have the same rules as earth. Who knows, maybe pure gold is transparent in Heaven.  Maybe the gates are literally made of pearl.  It's Heaven, anything is possible.  

God is existence.  You said so.  Hell exists.  You said so. It seems to me that Hell must contain some element of, or is sustained by, God.  But you tell me that Hell is a place where God's goodness doesn't exist.  I'm confused.  

 As Poop pointed out, and you didn't answer clearly enough for me, God sets up the rules.  You seem to be trying to characterize this whole going to Hell thing as out of God's hands by saying that it is the logical consequence of denying God.   Logical consequence?  Is this a test to see if we are paying attention?  It's not like he can't go to Hell and spruce up the place. It's not like there even has to be a Hell.  He made Hell, He chooses to make it a crappy place by denying his goodness to it.  He knows people that He created are down there.  Shame on Him.

Although I joked about it in an earlier post.  My main personal objection to this concept of Hell still remains.  My essence is what defines me.  It is literally what humblesmurph is.  Yes, humblesmurph is speaking about humblesmurph in the third person.  Yes, humblesmurph realizes the irony of this.  

Let me make it plain.  Whatever goes to Hell when I die, it isn't me.  My essence received it's properties from God.  Remove God or goodness, and you have altered my essence. Wait, did I just type that?  My essence can't be altered.  If my essence is altered even slightly, like one part of a gazillion, I cease to exist.  Whatever exists in my stead, isn't me.   This is the logical consequence of altering my essence.  When I go to Hell, humblesmurph ceases to exist and some other unfortunate entity gets to spend eternity outside of the shining light of God's goodness in humblesmurph's place.  Where did humblesmurph go?  Well, I suspect he's worm food.  What can we say about this entity that takes humblesmurph's place in Hell?  Well, we know it lacks morality.  Without morality, can we say it is human or the essence of a human?  I think not. Man was made in God's image, a man or an essence of a man with no morality is an oxymoron.  Even Hitler and Stalin had morality.  Only beasts lack morality.  So when humblesmurph dies, humblesmurph doesn't go to Hell.  Furthermore, the entity that goes in humblesmurph's place is just a beast that was created for the very purpose of going to Hell.  I'm cool with that.  Your hell just isn't scary enough.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Your hell just isn't scary enough.

In fact, it sounds less scary than the prospect of not having any afterlife at all.  Maybe not scary, but still...

Hell, in the more or less biblical sense of the word, is a counter-intuitive, highly speculative concept that depends entirely on several factors, such as the existence of afterlife, awareness in afterlife (Possibly awareness of "former self", "souls" (A dreadful word, but you get the idea...) having feelings and emotions, "souls" actually existing, in many cases the presense of god, which is another counter-intuitive proposition when sufficient intelligence is applied and so on.

Let's prove there IS a hell before we try applying logic to its proposed properties and workings, eh..?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Hell, in the more or less biblical sense of the word, is a counter-intuitive, highly speculative concept that depends entirely on several factors, such as the existence of afterlife, awareness in afterlife (Possibly awareness of "former self", "souls" (A dreadful word, but you get the idea...) having feelings and emotions, "souls" actually existing, in many cases the presense of god, which is another counter-intuitive proposition when sufficient intelligence is applied and so on.

Let's prove there IS a hell before we try applying logic to its proposed properties and workings, eh..?

I'm of the same mind as you.  However, Jac isn't presenting a proof of Hell here.  He is making the argument that Hell isn't inconsistent with a Good God.  It's all just mythology.  The Bible is a story.  We are simply arguing about whether this story makes any sense.  I've had similar conversations about the Matrix and Shawshank Redemption.

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.

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

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Jac3510"But this is answered by the fact that evil is by its nature torturous.

I've never tortured anyone.

I said evil is torturous. Not you. You are neither good nor evil, but a mixture of both. Come the resurrection, you will either be completely good or completely evil.

But, to challenge your point, if you've ever caused anyone severe pain--including emotional--you've tortured them, even if unintentionally.

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

Quote from: "Martin TK"Sorry but it all reads like a bunch of theologist BS to me.  A LOT of words to say little of nothing that has not been PREACHED from nearly every pulpit in the Christian world, and it's all wrong.

Your entire world view is rightfully yours, but wrongfully viewed.  You are making assumptions for which there is NO evidences at all, NONE.  Your only evidence is found in the bible or from writers who have studied the bible, or from philosophers who have "thought" about hell using the bible.  So by your definition, hell is a consequence of the rejection of god, not from the consequence of sin.  Wow, so a man who has "found" Jesus, been saved, and yet has done horrible things in his life is destined for heaven'; yet a man like myself who has done many good things because I like the way they make me feel, have helped many, many young people get an education, given of my time, talents, and money to charities, and lived a pretty darn boring and normal life, I AM destined for hell because I do not believe in god.  I know you have an answer to this, but is it going to be based on evidences or your view?

Nah, it all smells to "high Heaven" pun intended.

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.

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

Quote from: "Tom62"If what is written in the Bible is no longer correct according to modern theologists and Christian philosophers, then why don't they rewrite the Bible and bring out a version that is correct?  As it is right now, we've got a major conflict between the actual texts in the Bible and their actual "meaning". So it is high time to bring out a corrected and updated version of the Bible, to make it more coherent and valid. BTW I'm sure that all Christians would love to have a new edition of the Bible, that no longer contains stuff which are invalid or irrelevant according to modern theology and Christian philosophy. It would give them practically nothing to believe in any more :verysad:

Haha, my apologies. No, there is no sex in heaven. Perhaps we can take this as the great proof that Heaven isn't really all good?

As for your objections:

1. There are enough descriptions of heaven and hell in the Bible that we are more than justified in taking the language to be figurative. The mistake most people make when they take language as figurative is that they therefore assume that the thing itself isn't somehow real, but figurative language is used to illustrate a specific, real idea. So what does being thrown into a lake of fire imply? Unimaginable anguish. That's the concept. What does Jesus describing Hell as a dumb imply? That it's inhabitants are corrupt and worthless. Please understand that I am a literalist in my approach to the biblical text. I am not, however, a crass literalist. When Jesus said "I am the door," He wasn't implying that He had hinges on His body somewhere.

2. You raise an important point about existence and its relationship to goodness. I've been--or have tried to be--as simple as possible and not introduce distinctions until necessary, and here, one has become necessary. There are two kins of perfections: transferable and non-transferable. Knowledge, for instance, is a transferable perfection of God's. As God has knowledge, there is a sense in which we similarly have knowledge. Some perfections however cannot logically be transferred. Self-existence in one such perfection. There is no sense in which we are necessary, self-existent beings.

Now, in God, because He is simple, all perfections exist without distinction. His goodness is His existence is His love is His knowledge, etc. In us, however, our perfections exist in a diverse manner. Our goodness is not our existence is not our love is not our knowledge, etc. Yet all of these are derived (necessarily by analogy) from God.

With this in mind, we can answer your question directly. Beings in Hell still receive their existence from God. This is morally necessary on His part, for to withdraw existence would be annihilation, which would be immoral, which God is not capable of. All other perfections, though, become non-transferable. In this life, knowledge can be transferred. In the next, the unbeliever has asked God effectively to leave them alone, a request which God fundamentally honors. There is, then, no knowledge, even analogically, in this being, or any of the other perfections. In short, those in Hell are existing essence with absolutely no perfections (which will provide the basis of my answer to your last objection). As essences, they have all the capacity they ever did to receive such perfections, but those capacities will ever be void, and the resulting lack is defined as pure evil, and it is that lack that will torture those pure souls forever.

3. Concerning God's choice in creating Hell, again, Hell is a byproduct of creating moral beings. The creation of a moral being necessitates the creation of Hell, just as the creation of a coin by definition creates two sides. You can't have good without evil, because to have good requires us to define what it would mean to not have good. We call that state evil, and we call the experience of pure evil Hell. God's only option, then, in avoiding the creation of Hell would have been to not create any moral beings at all.

4. Would you rephrase your main personal objection? Why is it that you think that your essence in Hell would be different from your essence on earth? Why is it that the "you" in Hell would be a different person from the "you" that now exists? I don't follow your reasoning.

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

 

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Your hell just isn't scary enough.

In fact, it sounds less scary than the prospect of not having any afterlife at all.  Maybe not scary, but still...

Certainly it does. Again, annihilation would be, in my view, fundamentally immoral. God wouldn't do that to anyone. Now, the existence you will be left with will be worse than anything you can imagine as it will be devoid of any possible goodness of absolutely any kind. An eternity of rage and terror by itself makes me shudder, not to mention the rest of it. But, no . . . non-existence isn't a moral option.

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

Quote from: "Asmodean"Let's prove there IS a hell before we try applying logic to its proposed properties and workings, eh..?

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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The Bible is correct.

Prove it.

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"The Bible is correct.

Prove it.

See my response to HS and and Thump on the matter. I am not asserting the Bible is incorrect on the nature of Hell as Tom implied. Just the opposite. Now,as I've stated my case twice on the matter, if you want to comment on the substance of the argument I've already made, feel free to do so.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"The Bible is correct.

Prove it.

See my response to HS and and Thump on the matter. I am not asserting the Bible is incorrect on the nature of Hell as Tom implied. Just the opposite. Now,as I've stated my case twice on the matter, if you want to comment on the substance of the argument I've already made, feel free to do so.

Unless you have proof that it is correct their is no reason why anyone should believe you, if you are applying it to the natural world in any way.

Quote from: "Dretlin"Unless you have proof that it is correct their is no reason why anyone should believe you, if you are applying it to the natural world in any way.

Again, see my response to both Thump and HS on the matter. I'll help you out. They can be found here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=84308#p84308) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=84368#p84368) respectively. If you would like to discuss my position on this issue, then start with what I have already said.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Dretlin"Unless you have proof that it is correct their is no reason why anyone should believe you, if you are applying it to the natural world in any way.

Again, see my response to both Thump and HS on the matter. I'll help you out. They can be found here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=84308#p84308) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=84368#p84368) respectively. If you would like to discuss my position on this issue, then start with what I have already said.

When I have the time to read your generously large posts, I would like to reply.  

QuoteCertainly it does. Again, annihilation would be, in my view, fundamentally immoral. God wouldn't do that to anyone. Now, . An eternity of rage and terror by itself makes me shudder, not to mention the rest of it. But, no . . . non-existence isn't a moral option.

Therein lies the rub.  "the existence you will be left with will be worse than anything you can imagine as it will be devoid of any possible goodness of absolutely any kind" is morally repugnant and underscores the immorality of the being creating such a reality.  This, however, isn't what you previously described.  You described a place where people who couldn't be bothered to follow the inherent inconsistency and blatant hypocrisy of Jesus' fan club would spend eternity together.  Knowing the attitudes atheists tend to have as well as the attitudes theists tend to have, accounting for the fact that many theists are good people and therefore not true believers, I would prefer to spend eternity NOT in heaven.  Seriously, if the assholes up the street, you and Eddy constitute the average being in heaven and Thump, Smurph and Tank constitute the average person in hell, hell wouldn't be so bad of a place, but heaven would be terrible.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Thump, I am not going to line-by-line the responses. As you note, the length gets out of hand and it becomes difficult to answer others who are interested in discussion.

It's cool, no sweat.  As I said, I'm with you here.

Quote2. The assumption of a moral God is unjustified even for this thread (though you are willing to discuss the issue on the assumption of God's existence generally):

If God is not assumed to be good, then we may as well just say that God is a cosmic sadist. The problem with God and Hell is that we can't figure out how to reconcile a good God with Hell. If God isn't good, we may as well say, "Because God gets His jollies off by watching people squeal." Obviously, our problem is reconciling a good God with Hell, which is therefore the basis of the assumption.

When in thinking you reach a contradiction, you may be sure that one or more of your premises is wrong.

QuoteIt isn't so much that He took your guilt (although that was the practical impact) as it was He took humanity's guilt.

This is actually germane to your argument because of your assumption of your god's goodness.  The very fact that your god practices both corporate guilt and blood expiation is indicative of, at best, a morally ambiguous character, and one who is clearly capable of great evil.  No, if he also created hell, your assumption of his goodness is fatally undermined, and that pretty much ends the discussion.

QuoteHumans have free will ....

Which verse in the Bible says this?

QuoteImmoral behavior is never from God.

Nonsense.  As I've shown you in another thread, you god has ordered genocide and corporate punishment for individual crimes.

Quote6. What is an eternal body?

A body that never dies..... It simply takes time for the decay to set in.

Oh, I see.  It's another unevidenced structure built into your argument.  Cool.

Quote7. God's ability to keep people from going to Hell

See my response to PS above. Hell is a byproduct of creation. Giving men the ability to do good necessarily entails giving them the ability to do evil. The ability to do evil necessarily entails the possibility of an eternity without God, and since God is fundamentally good, that necessarily means an eternity without the slightest goodness, which is what we would call Hell.

Here is another limit you have placed on the god you claim is omnipotent.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.  

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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "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.

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?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Sophus"Why don't you want someone stealing stuff everyday? Because he might steal your stuff next.

No.  I don't want someone stealing stuff everyday because when that becomes acceptable, producers have no return on their production and consumers have no reason to produce.  Personal empathy and desires only fuel the proliferation of this aversion through social creatures.  Saying that the personal iteration of it makes it subjective is akin to saying that scientific data is subjective because it's being observed by a person.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

A good (from his own point of view since good is subjective) and moral (same parentheses) god creates a place with fire and torture and whatnot... Yeah. Sure. Why not.

However, why would he resort to forms of punishment that require the victims to have a nervous system, (Physical and psychological) since as far as I understand, a "soul" is supposed to have none?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"Why don't you want someone stealing stuff everyday? Because he might steal your stuff next.

No.  I don't want someone stealing stuff everyday because when that becomes acceptable, producers have no return on their production and consumers have no reason to produce.

Yes but then the question always boils down to: why is that bad?

Quote from: "Sophus"Yes but then the question always boils down to: why is that bad?

Because we are social animals that are dependent upon the availability of produced goods.  Without incentive to produce, there are no goods for us to consume.  Even in a very primitive society, there is a need for goods, hence the barter system.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"Yes but then the question always boils down to: why is that bad?

Because we are social animals that are dependent upon the availability of produced goods.  Without incentive to produce, there are no goods for us to consume.  Even in a very primitive society, there is a need for goods, hence the barter system.

I agree, as virtually everyone probably does. Still, I can't comprehend how that makes morality objective. Anything seen as 'good' or 'bad' is always subjective.

Quote from: "Sophus"I agree, as virtually everyone probably does. Still, I can't comprehend how that makes morality objective. Anything seen as 'good' or 'bad' is always subjective.

Indeed. Several people's misfortune would be a very good thing for me - would be equally bad for them and those immediately around them though- One mans good can well be another man's bad even seeing the issue through the prism of consumerism.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"Yes but then the question always boils down to: why is that bad?

Because we are social animals that are dependent upon the availability of produced goods.  Without incentive to produce, there are no goods for us to consume.  Even in a very primitive society, there is a need for goods, hence the barter system.

We all know that a system of right and wrong is essential to society just like we know that a pitch is essential to a soccer match.  However, we can't prove it is better to have a society than not have one, just like we can't prove that soccer doesn't suck and shouldn't be played by anybody ever.  Both of those statements are obviously true, but ultimately they are just my subjective opinions.

Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Seeing society as a subject to humanity in general, morality is still subjective.

When people talk about "objective" morality, they tend to think about something that applies to everyone and everything.

"
 1. Hell is not a place where we are punished for sin.
 2. Hell is not a place people go because they deserve be there.
 3. Regardless of the view of Hell one takes, no argument will or can make us "feel good" about it (it is, after all, Hell).
 4. Hell is not some metaphorical concept (that would certainly be an easy way out). It is real.
"
I am just quoting here, to spare me the jumping back and forth :-) They where never told about hell, heaven, god or any of that stuff, therefore they would harbour no feelings towards these concepts.

#4 i guess, after shredding the first three arguments, i can simply dismiss the false conclusion build upon them. hell is metaphorical and imaginary at best...

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Seeing society as a subject to humanity in general, morality is still subjective.

When people talk about "objective" morality, they tend to think about something that applies to everyone and everything.

I agree with you. Poop made a reference to morality being "pragmatically objective". I'm trying to flesh out exactly what he means by this.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Negative.  It's not my opinion, it's biological fact.  Now had we evolved as solitary creatures, that'd be a different story, but then we probably wouldn't have evolved a number of innovations that have helped us become what we are now.  I will concede that what is objectively moral would depend on the circumstances of the specific species.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Negative.  It's not my opinion, it's biological fact.  Now had we evolved as solitary creatures, that'd be a different story,

There are always exceptions (hermits, for example) but regardless I don't see how that fact has any bearing on morality itself. Nothing is "Wrong" until it is judged or interpreted as being wrong. With anything objective it must be the other way around. The universe is completely indifferent to human moral affairs.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Negative.  It's not my opinion, it's biological fact.  Now had we evolved as solitary creatures, that'd be a different story, but then we probably wouldn't have evolved a number of innovations that have helped us become what we are now.  I will concede that what is objectively moral would depend on the circumstances of the specific species.

Facts have proof.  Prove that man absolutely couldn't survive without morality.

I see lions on the Serengeti acting without morality all the time on the Discovery Channel.  They take what they want, kill what they want and fuck what they want.  They seem to get along fine.  Why can't humans mimic them and survive?

Ultimately, you can't even prove that the continued survival of man is a good thing.

Edit: Sophus, I understand your point.  Poop is wrong twice on this one:

First he is acting under the assumption that the survival of man is necessarily good and that society is the necessarily the best way to do that.  

Second, he is stating that there is some objective way to determine the parameters of society.

I am concerning myself with his first wrong idea.  You are concerning yourself with his second wrong idea.

Quote from: "Sophus"There are always exceptions (hermits, for example)

Yep.  Hermits also tend to go back to town and restock supplies.  The ones who don't AND survive are pretty rare.  Regardless, the anomalies are a perfect opportunity for evolution to take over.  A solitary version of humanity would be an interesting creature indeed and the morality of such a creature wouldn't be based on how society functions.

Quotebut regardless I don't see how that fact has any bearing on morality itself.

social degradation.

QuoteNothing is "Wrong" until it is judged or interpreted as being wrong.

And an individual who subjectively goes against that is removed from society.

QuoteWith anything objective it must be the other way around.

Not necessarily.  The subject merely needs to look at the situation objectively.

QuoteThe universe is completely indifferent to human moral affairs.

So what?  The universe is indifferent to the fact that our galaxy and andromeda will collide, killing all life in both.  By that logic, nothing below the level of "universal" is objective.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Facts have proof.  Prove that man absolutely couldn't survive without morality.

I never made that argument.

QuoteI see lions on the Serengeti acting without morality all the time on the Discovery Channel.  They take what they want, kill what they want and fuck what they want.  They seem to get along fine.  Why can't humans mimic them and survive?

Lions DO have morality.  It's harsher than ours, but it IS a code of conduct that allows lion society (which is MUCH different than ours) to function.

QuoteUltimately, you can't even prove that the continued survival of man is a good thing.

Well, the lack of that survival is pretty BAD for mankind, which is the level of objectivity I'm talking about.

QuoteFirst he is acting under the assumption that the survival of man is necessarily good and that society is the necessarily the best way to do that.  

Necessarily good on what objective level?

QuoteSecond, he is stating that there is some objective way to determine the parameters of society.

No, the parameters of society are the level of objectivity from which I'm arguing.

QuoteI am concerning myself with his first wrong idea.  You are concerning yourself with his second wrong idea.

Your lack of understanding my point doesn't make me wrong, though it implies I'm an ineffective communicator.

Poop maybe you are a bad communicator.  Could explain why you have chosen to change the accepted meaning of the word 'objective'?  Not one single individual moral rule is objective:

Do you think that it is wrong to give children IQ tests at the age of 6 and kill every one that scores below a certain number?  If not, why?

Do you think that every person over the age of 80 should be taken out back and shot?  If not, why?

Do you think that it should be illegal for retarded people to procreate?  If not, why?

I could go on, but you get the point.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Could explain why you have chosen to change the accepted meaning of the word 'objective'?  

Can you explain HOW I've done so?

QuoteNot one single individual moral rule is objective:

So murder is only detrimental on a subjective level?

QuoteDo you think that it is wrong to give children IQ tests at the age of 6 and kill every one that scores below a certain number?  If not, why?

Do you think that every person over the age of 80 should be taken out back and shot?  If not, why?

Do you think that it should be illegal for retarded people to procreate?  If not, why?

Society has set the norms on these.  Biology itself makes the first and third ones invalid in that artificial selection is rarely beneficial for the species.  The second one doesn't bother me, but is against social values of our society.

QuoteI could go on, but you get the point.

Yeah.  You're equating objective morality with absolute morality.  The former exists, the latter doesn't.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Could explain why you have chosen to change the accepted meaning of the word 'objective'?  

Can you explain HOW I've done so?

QuoteNot one single individual moral rule is objective:

So murder is only detrimental on a subjective level?

QuoteDo you think that it is wrong to give children IQ tests at the age of 6 and kill every one that scores below a certain number?  If not, why?

Do you think that every person over the age of 80 should be taken out back and shot?  If not, why?

Do you think that it should be illegal for retarded people to procreate?  If not, why?

Society has set the norms on these.  Biology itself makes the first and third ones invalid in that artificial selection is rarely beneficial for the species.  The second one doesn't bother me, but is against social values of our society.

QuoteI could go on, but you get the point.

Yeah.  You're equating objective morality with absolute morality.  The former exists, the latter doesn't.

How does biology make the first and third ones invalid?  How are our social values determined?  Do they change?  Can they be wrong?  Does consensus equal objectivity?   What is the difference between absolute morality and objective morality?

Objective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

This is what I assume when one usually speaks of 'objective' as we are here.   It seems to me that you think of morality as a fluid thing.  That fluidity comes from personal feelings, interpretations and or prejudices.  Therefore, morality isn't objective.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"And an individual who subjectively goes against that is removed from society.

I don't think that's always the case. Look at all the recent war crimes that have gone unpunished.

QuoteNot necessarily.  The subject merely needs to look at the situation objectively.

There's no way a moral judgement can be free of bias or emotion. Objectively is merely looking at the reality of the situation. Any moral conclusions  drawn from whether or not it's immoral for the Aztec's to sacrifice a child so the sun can rise because it's based on a provably false belief would also rely on the opinion that human life is sacred or has value.  Objective science cannot prove that human life has any value or significance because it is completely cerebral and never argues for the value of anything. It is purely a human affair for humans to work out for themselves.

QuoteSo what?  The universe is indifferent to the fact that our galaxy and andromeda will collide, killing all life in both.  By that logic, nothing below the level of "universal" is objective.

The above better clarifies what is meant by that.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"How does biology make the first and third ones invalid?  

I already stated: artificial selection is almost always detrimental to the species being artificially selected.

QuoteHow are our social values determined?  

In a variety of ways.

QuoteDo they change?  

Sometimes.  Hence absolute morality not existing.

QuoteCan they be wrong?  

Wrong in what frame of reference?

QuoteDoes consensus equal objectivity?  

That depends on frame of reference.  I don't consider a look to be sexual harassment, but I can still be fired for it under those criteria.  I can subjectively deny that, but I am objectively held to it.

QuoteWhat is the difference between absolute morality and objective morality?

Absolute includes unchangeability.

QuoteObjective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Yep.  Regardless of my feelings about it, society has standards.

QuoteIt seems to me that you think of morality as a fluid thing.  That fluidity comes from personal feelings, interpretations and or prejudices.  Therefore, morality isn't objective.

Not necessarily.  Often times morality is refined to reflect society's new, more objective perspective on an issue.

Poopshoot, do you think slavery is wrong now?  Do you think it was wrong in the 18th century?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Poopshoot, do you think slavery is wrong now?  Do you think it was wrong in the 18th century?

What does my subjective opinion have to do with it?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Poopshoot, do you think slavery is wrong now?  Do you think it was wrong in the 18th century?

What does my subjective opinion have to do with it?

 Are you only willing to answer a question if you feel it is pertinent to an argument?  Just answer the questions.  

Follow up question:  Coke or Pepsi?

I don't have the data to make an appropriate judgment of slavery.  I think the cotton plantations of the American south held their slaves in deplorable conditions, but in older cultures slaves were treated pretty well.  The context of the time is necessary.  That said, when the view of people change to include the fact that members of other races are also human, slavery was soon abolished.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.tinypic.com%2Fe6yioj.jpg&hash=ad150490360ee7f53079b9cdf3a6c09136b5a154)

Your objective morality is a fiction.  It's just a consistent adherence to society's laws that have been dictated to you. That's not morality, that's obedience.  You don't care how these laws came to be.  There is no independent check for these laws.  For you, a law is just the way we do things until they tell us to do something different.   That's not morality, that's arbitrariness.  

You treat morality like a yard stick.  An inch or a foot or a yard is just an arbitrary unit of length.  It has usefulness because of it's consistency.  We know what 3 feet is because it's always the same.  If we convened and decided that an inch was slightly longer, then a yard would be slightly longer.  It would still be a yard, but the word yard would represent a different length.   Regardless, when we say something is a yard in length, we'd be making an objective statement.  When you say morality is objective, you are saying that it is the consistent application of accepted morality.  Shenanigans.  Your objective morality is different for different cultures around the world.  Fairness in Saudi Arabia is not the same as fairness in Qatar.  Fairness in Qatar is not the same as fairness in the UK.  A foot is a foot everywhere on the planet, that's what makes it objective.  

You didn't answer the yes or no question.  I think slavery was wrong.  It was wrong then.  It's wrong now.  That is easy for me to see when applying Sophus' method of morality.  Is it objective, no, but it is consistent enough for me.  You think morality is objective but you have no opinion on slavery?  Interesting.  What information would you have to have for slavery to be OK in your book?  What data do you need before you come to the conclusion that the idea of a slave  being treated "pretty well" is an oxymoron?

The fact that society defines morality shows that it is subjective.  We all more or less voted and decided to treat women like equals in the West.  There are societies that exist today where that is not the case.  They make a reasonable argument.  Women aren't measurably equal to men.  Men are bigger, stronger, faster, and just as intelligent.  This reasonable argument is wrong.  Why do I think that?  I apply Sophus' method (obviously he's not the inventor of it) and empathize with a woman as a human being.  Would I want to have less rights because I was weaker or slower. No.  Therefore, a woman should be treated equally.  Can I point to some yardstick to prove this case? No.  But that's fine, my empathetic approximation is good enough for me.

Pepsi rocks.

Wait, so It's not objective because it incorporates new information and it's not objective because it's only objective on the level I said it was objective to within the context of the time period?

Science incorporates new data and interpretation is subjective to the realm of study and current data, is science not objective?

I gave the parameters that you're now trying to use against me: time period and society.  I already said it would change depending on these two things, and that was why it was objective while not absolute.  You are still equating the terms.  You're doing so because you're butthurt that I didn't fall into your trap of answering your question with a subjective opinion that you could then use to say "see, you are putting YOUR subjective opinion on it".  I suppose it can't be helped that you won't separate objective from absolute at this point.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Wait, so It's not objective because it incorporates new information and it's not objective because it's only objective on the level I said it was objective to within the context of the time period?

Science incorporates new data and interpretation is subjective to the realm of study and current data, is science not objective?

I gave the parameters that you're now trying to use against me: time period and society.  I already said it would change depending on these two things, and that was why it was objective while not absolute.  You are still equating the terms.  You're doing so because you're butthurt that I didn't fall into your trap of answering your question with a subjective opinion that you could then use to say "see, you are putting YOUR subjective opinion on it".  I suppose it can't be helped that you won't separate objective from absolute at this point.

   No not butt hurt.  I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to understand your definition of objective reality through argumentation.  At first it seemed like some Ayn Rand type of thing.  I was mistaken.  This certainly isn't that.  As Asmodean stated, when people generally speak of objective, they mean that it is applicable to everybody everywhere.  Science is objective.  Gravity exists in Sudan just as it does in Queensland.  Any repeatable results we can get in Chile we can get in Canada if we are using a controlled setting.  By the accepted meaning of the word objective, if morality changes from society to society it isn't objective.  I really did think that you meant that it just changed from time to time, not from place to place at the exact same time.  If societies get a say, then it seems subjugation of women is OK in Saudi Arabia but not in the US.  This seems quite subjective to me. You haven't really given the parameters of your analysis.  Your answers regarding your method of determining and verifying morality are vague.  Sophus' subjective method is quite simple, repeatable, and gives me the "correct" answer on what I thought to be obvious questions like the subjugation of women and slavery.

It's not your job to explain it if you don't want to.  However, you were the one who brought objective morality into the discussion.  This was shocking to me.  I don't care what your subjective opinion is regarding slavery because you implied that an objective answer to the slavery question existed.  I wanted the objective answer.  You couldn't provide one because you didn't have enough evidence to say whether slavery was right or wrong objectively.  I seriously want to know what evidence would be required or what kind of experimentation could possibly lead to slavery being justified morally.  Objective morality isn't something I can just go look up like Humanism or Calvinism.  If you made this up, cool.  If you feel like explaining it in a way that I can repeat it to others so we can discuss the merits of it, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'll give you my email address.  If you got this idea from elsewhere, that's cool too, if you feel like posting a link or suggesting a book I'd greatly appreciate that as well.

Actually I've just been examining it from a sociological standpoint.  I'm not very good at sociology so your input has been appreciated.  I have looked at morality from a biological standpoint for a very long time.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Actually I've just been examining it from a sociological standpoint.  I'm not very good at sociology so your input has been appreciated.  I have looked at morality from a biological standpoint for a very long time.

like which moral behaviors are demonstrably better for survival of a species?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Actually I've just been examining it from a sociological standpoint.  I'm not very good at sociology so your input has been appreciated.  I have looked at morality from a biological standpoint for a very long time.

like which moral behaviors are demonstrably better for survival of a species?

It's a hair more complicated than that, but in a nutshell, yes.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Actually I've just been examining it from a sociological standpoint.  I'm not very good at sociology so your input has been appreciated.  I have looked at morality from a biological standpoint for a very long time.

like which moral behaviors are demonstrably better for survival of a species?

It's a hair more complicated than that, but in a nutshell, yes.

Any recommended reading?  Or is it all big brained sciency type stuff?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Any recommended reading?  Or is it all big brained sciency type stuff?

It's based on what I know about biology, evolution and such.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Any recommended reading?  Or is it all big brained sciency type stuff?

It's based on what I know about biology, evolution and such.

Do you write?  Seems like an interesting topic for a book. All the stuff I see on the subject of biological morality seems quite philosophical.  Maybe your book could be less mental masturbation and more empirical evidence based.

Interesting.  I might drum up an essay on the subject some time.

Jac, Your entire argument is based on the assumption that hell is without a doubt real. And in order to explain why a hell would exist you must first tell me why an all loving god would create hell for the children he loved. God sat in heaven for eternity, perfectly fine with what was going on, why would he wait an infinit amount of time to create us? And set us up to fail? Why torture his creation if there is no chance for redemption?

Tell me why the people in other countries, that have never even heard the name of jesus, die before they have to the chance to find the one "true" god?

Tell me why didn't jesus just forgive the children who sinned? Why make them suffer if he DOES NOT HAVE TO.

I know you have a son, I've read it in another topic. But let me ask you something. Would you ever, EVER make your son burn in eternal fire, with no chance of the pain ending? Why do you believe god would do that to his billions of children? Being holy means nothing, just because they didn't ask for forgivness should never be equal to an eternal punishment. If god can do so many magic tricks like ressurect dead bodies, make rain fall at 8700 inches a day (the flood) get all of the millions of species onto the arc in one day, why can't he simply say "come to heaven"?

If god existed, his design/plan would make sense. Instead, it doesn't.

Jac,

Where you at man?  I hope all is well.  I know you aren't the least bit thrown by the responses to your OP.  Please don't be dissuaded by the derail, I for one am greatly interested in your response.  I know it hasn't been that long since your last post, just giving you a stab with a stick to see if you are still involved with this particular discussion.

Quote from: "tymygy"Jac, Your entire argument is based on the assumption that hell is without a doubt real. And in order to explain why a hell would exist you must first tell me why an all loving god would create hell for the children he loved. God sat in heaven for eternity, perfectly fine with what was going on, why would he wait an infinit amount of time to create us? And set us up to fail? Why torture his creation if there is no chance for redemption?

Tell me why the people in other countries, that have never even heard the name of jesus, die before they have to the chance to find the one "true" god?

Tell me why didn't jesus just forgive the children who sinned? Why make them suffer if he DOES NOT HAVE TO.

I know you have a son, I've read it in another topic. But let me ask you something. Would you ever, EVER make your son burn in eternal fire, with no chance of the pain ending? Why do you believe god would do that to his billions of children? Being holy means nothing, just because they didn't ask for forgivness should never be equal to an eternal punishment. If god can do so many magic tricks like ressurect dead bodies, make rain fall at 8700 inches a day (the flood) get all of the millions of species onto the arc in one day, why can't he simply say "come to heaven"?

If god existed, his design/plan would make sense. Instead, it doesn't.

tl/dr:  A perfect creator would have no need to punish his creations.  A perfect creator would create perfection.

Quote from: "Jac3510"My major thesis is that Hell exists as a real place of eternal torment, but that our moral confusion arises because we take that torment to be punitive when it fact it is simply consequential. In other words, we don't suffer in Hell because we are being punished for our sins (up to and including not believing in Jesus); rather,those who die without Christ will be tortured by their own natures, and this state of affairs is that which we call Hell.

Okay. So those who die with Christ, then, will not be tortured by their own natures, is that correct? And that state of affairs, is it that which we call Heaven?

I started all over with this thread and here's where I had to stop to ask you something, Jac, it's in your opening post:

Quote from: "Jac3510"My major thesis is that Hell exists as a real place of eternal torment, but that our moral confusion arises because we take that torment to be punitive when it fact it is simply consequential. In other words, we don't suffer in Hell because we are being punished for our sins (up to and including not believing in Jesus); rather,those who die without Christ will be tortured by their own natures, and this state of affairs is that which we call Hell.

Okay. So those who die with Christ, then, will not be tortured by their own natures, is that correct? And that state of affairs, is it that which we call Heaven?

Hell is where we are tortured by our nature ---- tortured by our natures which are born in original sin which the cranky trickster god forced on everyone because two innocent children made the wrong decision after being tempted by a talking snake sent by the trickster god.  Now that its been explained, I believe.  I believe.

Actually, Hell is the 405/101 interchange at 5:30 pm.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, Hell is the 405/101 interchange at 5:30 pm.

Fuck, that deserves a +.  Too bad I can't.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, Hell is the 405/101 interchange at 5:30 pm.

Fuck, that deserves a +.  Too bad I can't.

I think that's equivelant to it.

Hey all - sorry for the long delay. I've had a heck of a week and am about to have another one, but I thought I should come back and respond to some of the conversation I'd left hanging. So let's see how this goes . . . so yeah, HS, I'm still around. Just crazy busy. I still need to get back to the other threads in the philosophy forum, too, but I'm pretty sure we'll all be around here for awhile . . . :D

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

PS, you argued that my sentence "the existence you will be left with will be worse than anything you can imagine as it will be devoid of any possible goodness of absolutely any kind" is both morally repugnant and different from what I argued before.

First, it is exactly what I described before. Reread my original post. I described Hell as a total lack of goodness and further pointed out that even unbelievers experience a level of goodness in this life precisely because human beings are still in the image of God, complete with the Moral Law written on our hearts. All that changes in the resurrection. All the niceness in the atheists you know--and I have agreed repeatedly that many atheists are fine, good, and nice people--will be completely gone, as that basic goodness is merely borrowed capital, so to speak.

Second, the categorical statement of its moral deficiency ignores the entire argument I put forward. Assertions arguments do not make. As I have argued, it would be immoral if it were punitive. It is not, however. It is consequential, and as such, there is no moral dilemma in suffering.

You then go on in a later post to argue that morality cannot be objective if it comes from a deity. You state, "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."

This is wrong. God doesn't decide what is moral. Things are moral relative to God's nature.

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

Thump, your post fundamentally raised three issues

1. Limits on God

Omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything that can be done. It does not, and never has, meant the ability to do that which is logically impossible. To argue this places a "limit" on God is simply ignorance of what Christianity has always taught on the matter. Arguments like "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" come across in exactly the fashion as when someone says, "If evolution is true, where are there still monkeys?" If something is logically necessary, that is true even of God. It doesn't limit Him, because something that is logically impossible is, in fact, not a thing, and is thus meaningless. All limits, by definition, are meaningful, so a meaningless limit is no limit. If Hell, then,  is a logically necessary consequence of free moral agency, then God didn't have a logical option not to create Hell if He made free moral agents (that is, us). Which raises the question of . . .

2. Human free will

You asked for a verse. To give only one, "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."(Josh. 24:15, NIV) Choice is impossible if there is no [relatively] free will.

Finally, then . . .

3. Evil acts of God

You charge God of evil on two counts, and if God is evil, then the entire argument goes out the window. First, you said if God created Hell then that would make Him evil. That, however, is the entire point of this thread, and as such, to assert Hell is evil is to simply beg the question. If you would like to consider my original argument as to why Hell is not evil, we can talk about this more. Second, then, you argued that God committed evil in killing people, to which I have already responded thoroughly. As you noted, it is in another thread, and so I insist that we keep these arguments in their proper places. In any case, for the purposes of this thread, I could simply disavow the biblical God and claim that we are simply working of basic philosophical principles. In other words, if goodness is real and thus exists in an essentially good God, the necessary result is a Hell as I have described.

On all this, I note that your points are moving further away from my initial post. Would you like to direct your comments toward the actual argument I put forward?

You then followed up with another post which I will quote:

QuoteAnd 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.

First, as the original post made clear, the moral issue regarding eternal torture is only a problem if the torture is externally inflicted as a punishment. I have argued, however, that it is a natural, and logically necessary, consequence. The torture people will feel in Hell is no more morally problematic than the pain people feel when they sprain their ankle or burn their finger.

Second, genetics does not produce objective morality. At best, it produces an agreed upon standard of right and wrong. If I choose to go against my genetically induced behavior, though, there is nothing wrong with what I have done on your view. I've simply acted in a way that your biology does not prefer. You may as well say that my preference for one ice cream flavor over another is wrong because you, for biological reasons, prefer a different flavor.

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

Davin,

First, you argued that Sophus' point was not an ad populum. You are mistaken. As you quoted, I stated explicitly, "To argue broad agreement makes it objective would be a logical fallacy called an ad populum fallacy" (Emphasis added). Whether or not Sophus was actually arguing that evolution or societal constructs produce morality, the line of questioning naturally tends in that direction, and if anyone moves on to make the argument based on such broad agreement, then they effectively are making a "because the mob says it is" based argument. AKA, ad populum.

Second, you argued that no goal posts have been moved. In the strictest sense, I agree. However, in essence, I disagree. While I am having specific discussion with specific people, and while I fully recognize that there is no such thing as a monolithic atheism, you also must recognize that there is a general consensus concerning things such as Hell. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of ideas, not playing silly rhetorical games. If Asmodean or MTK don't take the traditional "hell is evil" line, then they are free to say so. I will assume, however, that they do. I'm sure that when you meet a theist, you expect them to hold certain positions. If we have to stop and verify every position before we have any discussion, we could never get to any discussion. Now, the purpose of this thread is (supposed to be) to talk about how Hell can be morally justified, or, put different, how Hell is consistent with a moral God. At best, to ask for proof of Hell is off topic. More likely, it's simply moving the goal posts, since the argument normally put forward (by atheists generally) is that Hell is inconsistent with God, not that there is no evidence of His existence. Again, I'm interested in general discussion of this concept, and so I take it that those who take the negative stance on my argument assume the moral inconsistency if God and Hell, and that much more if they are atheists, both of which are clearly the case with Asmodean and MTK.

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

HS,

I should have been clearer in my request for clarification! You used your terminology perfectly well. That wasn't what lost me. What lost me, and still loses me, is this statement: "This altered essence that goes to Hell when I die isn't me." Assuming that your essence in Hell is different from you, then you would be correct. But can you tell me where you get the idea that my concept requires your essence to be altered? You say that I have to prove that Hell doesn't alter your essence, but I fail to see any reason to think that your essence would be offered. Can you show me where you think my argument would imply that it does? That's what confused me before, and that is where I am still confused.

As far as Hell not containing literal fire, I've already pointed out to you that much of language concerning Hell (and Heaven) in the Bible is symbolic or metaphorical. I gave several basic reasons to think that is the case. To expand only a bit, if there were fire, there would be light, but the Bible describes Hell as completely dark. At this point, we simply apply the standard rules of human language. We generally assume a statement is literal unless there is something in our experience or in the nature of the wording that forces us to take it non-literally to have meaning. As such, when I say, "It's raining cats and dogs" you don't actually think dogs are falling from the sky. You know from both your experience (we use that phrase to speak of heavy rain) and the language itself (it rains water, not animals) that the phrase is figurative. Just the same with the biblical statements regarding the afterlife. Perhaps the gold in Heaven, for instance, is clear, but we have no reason to think that it is. John had never seen clear gold, and neither had his readers, so there is no reason to think that he intended such language to be taken literally, anymore than he did when he described Jesus as being a door meant that Jesus had hinges!

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

Martin,

Concerning goal posts, as I noted to Davin above, the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not Hell is logically consistent with a good God. To take, then, Davin's point, either your request that I first prove Hell is real (or that God is good, or whatever) is at best irrelevant, and at worst it is moving the goal posts, since the general claim among atheists is that Hell is incompatible with God. In other words, I am challenging a basic argument commonly put forward (and specifically put forward by Thump). To ask me to prove yet a different issue is to move the goal posts.

Concerning moral standards, God does not have a different moral standard than we do. There is one moral standard, but God is not "under" it, not does He "decide" it. Thinks are moral or not relative to their consistency with God's nature. God does not behave in a manner and then call it good. God acts according to His nature, and since His nature is good, His actions are also good.

Finally, concerning evidence, there is plenty, and outside of the Bible at that. The evidence is in the fact that humans behave as if that there really is such a thing as right and wrong. If right and wrong really exist, then a moral God exists, and if a moral God exists, then my argument is that Hell exists at least as I have described it. Now, perhaps there really is no right and wrong, but the fact that we behave as if that it really does exist is, if nothing else, evidence for the position. The fact that most of the people on this board think that Hell really is wrong and that God really has done evil things is, I submit, evidence for my claims, both specific and general.

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

Quote from: "Asmodean"A good (from his own point of view since good is subjective) and moral (same parentheses) god creates a place with fire and torture and whatnot... Yeah. Sure. Why not.

1. If good is relative to God's nature then good is not subjective.
2. My entire post argues that the fire is figurative language for severe anguish, and that anguish is consequential rather than punitive.

If you would like to respond to my actual argument, I'm more than willing to discuss the matter. If not, then okay. Nothing says you have to engage in any conversation you don't want to.

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

_7654_

Let me ask you an honest question. Did you read my post before you made yours? The four statements I quoted were statements about what Hell is not. The rest of the post goes on to explain what it is. For you to ask, "Well then what is it?" without dealing with the substance of my post is rather silly. Just to humor you, however . . .

1. It's the natural consequence of sin.
2. As Hell is a natural consequence, no one is there arbitrarily, but that does not mean anyone does or does not deserve to be there. When you accidentally stub your toe, you don't "deserve" the pain. You hurt because that is what naturally happens when you stub your toe.
3. People who are ignorant of heaven and hell will obviously have no feelings on the matter. People who are aware of Hell, however, rightfully have a negative emotional response. As my thread is directed to those who have just such a negative feeling toward Hell, I am pointing out that they should not expect to feel better about the basic concept following a logical demonstration of the consistency of God and Hell.
4. Considering you never discussed a single piece of my actual argument, I find it amusing you think you "shredded" it. In any case, none of these four opening statements are arguments, as I first stated. They are statements about what Hell is not to frame the discussion about what Hell is. As many (Christians) argue that there is no Hell, I want to make clear my position is nothing so simplistic as that.

Would you, then, like to respond to the actual concept I have put forward?

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

tymygy,

1. Assumption of Hell and God:

As I already stated, yes, my argument assumes both of these. My purpose in this thread is only to meet the common objection that a good God and Hell are fundamentally incompatible. If you would like to discuss my argument as to why they are compatible, which I have presented, I am more than willing and very interested in that discussion.

2. Why create Hell?

Read the OP. It is a logically necessary corollary to a good God's creation of free moral beings.

3. What about people who have never heard of Jesus?

Yes, they have the same chance as anyone else. God is perfectly capable of saving those who seek after Him. This, however, is a different topic, so if you would like it addressed, please start a different thread.

4. "Tell me why didn't jesus just forgive the children who sinned? Why make them suffer if he DOES NOT HAVE TO."

It is clear from this that you did not read the first argument at all, much less the thread, as I have dealt with this.

5. Would I make my daughter burn forever?

Of course not, and neither does God. I suggest you read the argument I presented.

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

Thump,

Your recast of tymygy's point is perfectly acceptable. You said, "A perfect creator would have no need to punish his creations. A perfect creator would create perfection."

Of course, my basic argument is that Hell is a logically necessary corollary to the creation of free moral agents, and so there is nothing in Hell that suggests a lack of perfection. Further, my first qualification in the OP is that Hell is not a place for the punishment of sins. As such, the objection fails there as well.

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

J, you said:

"Okay. So those who die with Christ, then, will not be tortured by their own natures, is that correct? And that state of affairs, is it that which we call Heaven?"
Those who died in Christ will exist exactly in accordance with their natures, just as those who died without Christ will. The nature of those who die without Christ will be different from the nature of those who die in Him, in that the former will be resurrected completely separated from God (and thus, with all goodness in them being negated) and the latter being united with God (and thus, all goodness exemplified in them).

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

The rest of the thread was interesting enough discussion about the nature of morality, but I'll let it go unless something directly comes up with reference to my argument. Again, to restate my basic position very briefly:

Hell is that eternal state of affairs in which all goodness is negated from existence due to the simple fact that all goodness is by definition rooted in God's nature. As such, those who die without God are resurrected completely separated from Him (in an experiential sense) and thus can experience no goodness of any kind. The suffering of Hell, then, is not punitive but consequential.

Further, this is a logically necessary conclusion so long as (1) God is good and (2) human beings are moral agents. If God is not good, then there is no reason to suggest that good and evil exist, much less that Hell does or does not exist or that it is or is not compatible with God. If, however, God is good, then all goodness is rooted in His nature, and goodness requires that one not force themselves on another (that would be, as I call it, divine rape). If humans are not moral agents, then there is no reason to suggest that humans will or will not suffer (or enjoy) moral consequences, either temporally or eternally. If they are, however, then all morality is fundamentally rooted in God, meaning a complete severing of fellowship with God means a complete severing of participation in goodness. The complete loss of goodness is the state so described in this thread as Hell. The moral argument for God's existence, then, also implies that Hell exists, and can thus be stated:

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

As this argument affirms both the goodness of God and the moral agency of man, it constitutes evidence not only for God's existence, but for Hell's existence as so described.

Quote from: "Jac3510"J, you said:

"Okay. So those who die with Christ, then, will not be tortured by their own natures, is that correct? And that state of affairs, is it that which we call Heaven?"
Those who died in Christ will exist exactly in accordance with their natures, just as those who died without Christ will. The nature of those who die without Christ will be different from the nature of those who die in Him, in that the former will be resurrected completely separated from God (and thus, with all goodness in them being negated) and the latter being united with God (and thus, all goodness exemplified in them).

I think I'm starting to get an angle on your idea of what happens to people when they go to hell.

People who don't die "in Christ," no matter how wonderful, loving, caring, creative they were, no matter how much joy they brought to themselves and others, no matter how much they loved their family as their family loved them, no matter what those people did to help others and selflessly work to improve others' lives, those people will be ressurected in what you call hell and all their goodness will be negated.

Is this what you're saying?

If it is, even if it isn't, here's what's wrong about that kind of thinking. Already you've divided humanity into two groups, those who are "in Christ" and those who are not. And all religions do that, all religions make distinctions between those who are on their side, so to speak, and those who aren't.

The fact that you are speaking as an advocate for a religion casts a great deal of doubt on the reasoning behind what you're writing here, at least as far as I'm concerned, can you understand that?

And can't you see that saying "some die in Christ and some don't" makes absolutely no sense at all because you haven't explained what "in Christ" means?

So...what does "in Christ" mean? Is it a technical term?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Thump, your post fundamentally raised three issues

1. Limits on God

Omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything that can be done. It does not, and never has, meant the ability to do that which is logically impossible.

In googling the definition, the overwhelming majority don't mention that qualification.  Nor did I suggest anything that is logically impossible.

 

QuoteTo argue this places a "limit" on God is simply ignorance of what Christianity has always taught on the matter. Arguments like "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" come across in exactly the fashion as when someone says, "If evolution is true, where are there still monkeys?"

Of course, I didn't ask such a silly question, nor would insult your intelligence by so doing.

 

QuoteIf something is logically necessary, that is true even of God. It doesn't limit Him, because something that is logically impossible is, in fact, not a thing, and is thus meaningless. All limits, by definition, are meaningful, so a meaningless limit is no limit. If Hell, then,  is a logically necessary consequence of free moral agency, then God didn't have a logical option not to create Hell if He made free moral agents (that is, us). Which raises the question of . . .

That's a helluva big if when an omnipotent god can merely make us with the will to do right.

Quote2. Human free will

You asked for a verse. To give only one, "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."(Josh. 24:15, NIV) Choice is impossible if there is no [relatively] free will.

In our debate about pi, you protested that it wasn't mentioned in the verse.  Now, I've asked you to cite a verse which specifically refers to "free will".  I don't see it mentioned here.  Why do you violate your own standards?

Now, free will is all fine and well, but is it free will when one's eternal soul is held hostage?  No.  If a robber points a gun to your head and demands your money, and is subsequently caught, should he be found innocent because you chose to surrender your wallet?

QuoteFinally, then . . .

3. Evil acts of God

You charge God of evil on two counts, and if God is evil, then the entire argument goes out the window. First, you said if God created Hell then that would make Him evil. That, however, is the entire point of this thread, and as such, to assert Hell is evil is to simply beg the question. If you would like to consider my original argument as to why Hell is not evil, we can talk about this more.

I'd like to see that argument, not that I expect anything more than standard apologetics.  Also, demonstrating the evil of hell is easy:

1) It is disproportionate to the "sin".  It is eternal torment for a finite "sin".
2) The concept of punishment is meaningless in the absence of the possibility of redemption.  At that point it ceases to be punishment and becomes simple, and tawdry, revenge.

 

QuoteSecond, then, you argued that God committed evil in killing people, to which I have already responded thoroughly.

And in a thoroughly unsatisfactory manner; you never did explain how an omnipotent god couldnot have devised a more humane punishment.  You never did explain why him meting out the death penalty to everyone for the "sin" of two is just, which means that every death in human history (save, possibly, those two -- an exception I don't hold to be right) every death in human history is a murder.  You never did explain why an almighty god had to resort to killing everyone on the planet because of the sinful nature that he supposedly gave us, when a perfect god might simply have taught the people better.

 

QuoteAs you noted, it is in another thread, and so I insist that we keep these arguments in their proper places. In any case, for the purposes of this thread, I could simply disavow the biblical God and claim that we are simply working of basic philosophical principles. In other words, if goodness is real and thus exists in an essentially good God, the necessary result is a Hell as I have described.

Not so. You are, first,  assuming your god's goodness, and then asserting that hell isn't evil because your god is good.  I have shown above the evils of your god.  If you choose to close your eyes to those points, culled from your holy book, then so be it.  I refuse to worship an evil god.

QuoteOn all this, I note that your points are moving further away from my initial post. Would you like to direct your comments toward the actual argument I put forward?

I'm pretty sure I've pointed out the illogic of hell being made by a good ogd.  My posting is pertinent.

You then followed up with another post which I will quote:

QuoteFirst, as the original post made clear, the moral issue regarding eternal torture is only a problem if the torture is externally inflicted as a punishment. I have argued, however, that it is a natural, and logically necessary, consequence. The torture people will feel in Hell is no more morally problematic than the pain people feel when they sprain their ankle or burn their finger.

Yes, I read your argument.  I find it unconvincing.  You haven't shown how eternal torment -- not "punishment", as that requires the possibility of redemption --  is good.

QuoteSecond, genetics does not produce objective morality. At best, it produces an agreed upon standard of right and wrong.

Perhaps, and perhaps not.  That, too, is another discussion.

QuoteIf I choose to go against my genetically induced behavior, though, there is nothing wrong with what I have done on your view. I've simply acted in a way that your biology does not prefer. You may as well say that my preference for one ice cream flavor over another is wrong because you, for biological reasons, prefer a different flavor.

Except that tasting doesn't have a moral dimension because it doesn't affect others.  Analogyfail.

Quote1. If morality is objective then God exists
2. Morality is objective
3. Therefore God exists.

As shown earlier, not only have you not shown 2) to be evidenced at all, you have practiced moral relativity by calling an act ordered by your god good which you would deem evil were it ordered by men.  That is the very essence of relativity.  Unless, of course, you deem genocide morally defensible.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Davin,

First, you argued that Sophus' point was not an ad populum. You are mistaken. As you quoted, I stated explicitly, "To argue broad agreement makes it objective would be a logical fallacy called an ad populum fallacy" (Emphasis added). Whether or not Sophus was actually arguing that evolution or societal constructs produce morality, the line of questioning naturally tends in that direction, and if anyone moves on to make the argument based on such broad agreement, then they effectively are making a "because the mob says it is" based argument. AKA, ad populum.

He wasn't arguing on broad agreement though, he argued it as if it was something other than broad agreement like "what if we all evolved the ability to feel pain" not "what if we all evolved to agree on certain things." If you think it's an appeal to majority, then I think you're misunderstanding his point.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Second, you argued that no goal posts have been moved. In the strictest sense, I agree. However, in essence, I disagree. While I am having specific discussion with specific people, and while I fully recognize that there is no such thing as a monolithic atheism, you also must recognize that there is a general consensus concerning things such as Hell. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of ideas, not playing silly rhetorical games. If Asmodean or MTK don't take the traditional "hell is evil" line, then they are free to say so. I will assume, however, that they do. I'm sure that when you meet a theist, you expect them to hold certain positions. If we have to stop and verify every position before we have any discussion, we could never get to any discussion. Now, the purpose of this thread is (supposed to be) to talk about how Hell can be morally justified, or, put different, how Hell is consistent with a moral God. At best, to ask for proof of Hell is off topic. More likely, it's simply moving the goal posts, since the argument normally put forward (by atheists generally) is that Hell is inconsistent with God, not that there is no evidence of His existence. Again, I'm interested in general discussion of this concept, and so I take it that those who take the negative stance on my argument assume the moral inconsistency if God and Hell, and that much more if they are atheists, both of which are clearly the case with Asmodean and MTK.

I never expect anyone to hold any positions, I find this frees me from making assumptions about other people. If they want me know what positions they hold, they'll tell me, otherwise I don't know so I don't assume.

If you only want to argue what you perceive as the argument normally put forward by atheists, then why open a discussion on and open forum? The topic is why you have no logical problem with hell, anything seen that could be a logical problem (like accepting something as true without any evidence to support it), matches the topic of the forum. Moving goal posts is a bad argument tactic that you accused other people of without any reasonable basis, because they didn't.

This interest in only discussing certain kinds of arguments and ignoring the rest seems to be counter to something you said earlier in a different thread: Link (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5684&p=79758#p79730) "We are to deal with the strongest form of an argument. Picking off a weaker form and declaring victory doesn't float." It very much looks like you're picking off a weaker form of an argument and are only interested in discussing the weaker forms when you say things like "Again, I'm interested in general discussion of this concept[...]" Why only argue what you perceive as the general argument instead what would more likely be a stronger argument when you clearly stated that picking off a weaker form doesn't fly?

It's your choice which arguments you're going to discuss, but accusing someone of using a bad argument tactic when they hadn't is not the way to go, you can just say you're not interested in discussing that in this thread, at this time, at all... etc..

Quote from: "Jac3510"PS, you argued that my sentence "the existence you will be left with will be worse than anything you can imagine as it will be devoid of any possible goodness of absolutely any kind" is both morally repugnant and different from what I argued before.

First, it is exactly what I described before. Reread my original post. I described Hell as a total lack of goodness and further pointed out that even unbelievers experience a level of goodness in this life precisely because human beings are still in the image of God, complete with the Moral Law written on our hearts. All that changes in the resurrection. All the niceness in the atheists you know--and I have agreed repeatedly that many atheists are fine, good, and nice people--will be completely gone, as that basic goodness is merely borrowed capital, so to speak.

You argue two mutually exclusive positions.  If I change, I am not I; if I do not change (and everyone else by extension of that logic), then hell ain't so bad.

QuoteSecond, the categorical statement of its moral deficiency ignores the entire argument I put forward. Assertions arguments do not make. As I have argued, it would be immoral if it were punitive. It is not, however. It is consequential, and as such, there is no moral dilemma in suffering.

But it IS punitive and NOT consequential.  Consequential implies it just simply happens, like dropping a cinderblock on your foot.  God created gravity for a useful purpose and god created pain sensors in your foot for another purpose, the pain you feel from dropping a cinderblock on your foot is consequential to the mechanics of gravity and the biology of nerve sensory.  Conversely, Hell was created specifically to punish people for minor crimes.

QuoteYou then go on in a later post to argue that morality cannot be objective if it comes from a deity. You state, "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."

This is wrong. God doesn't decide what is moral. Things are moral relative to God's nature.

Meaningless nondistinction.  Also demonstrably false by virtue of the fact that his "laws" changed.

Jac, is you primary reason for rejecting annihilationism moral or biblical?

Btw, I pretty much completely agree with you with respect to the other things you've said about hell.

J,

Your summary is a fair representation of my point. Behavior has no bearing on whether or not we end up in Heaven or Hell. Again, go back to my first point: Hell is not a place where we are punished for sins. Likewise, Heaven is a reward for good behavior.

This, then, is the difference, I think, to answer your concern about the "us vs. them" mentality. We don't view non-Christians (or, we shouldn't, anyway) as "the bad guys" and ourselves as "the good guys." Just the opposite, Christian doctrine states that all of us are the bad guys. We all have a cancer, if you will. That cancer is terminal--eternally terminal. There is Someone who can cure it, though, and His name is Jesus. My job is simply and only to point you to the One who can save you from on otherwise unavoidable fate, just as He did me.

At this point, we start going a bit off topic. I'm not saying that you have to jump through hoops to be saved. Christianity (as I understand it) doesn't require you to live a certain way or keep certain rituals or be really good or anything of the sort. We can open another thread on what the Gospel is and why it is so by nature. For now, let it be sufficient to say that all you are asked to do is to let Jesus save you. To push the analogy, the surgery is free and Jesus is the only one who knows how to do it. He's asking you to let Him take care of it for you. All you have to do is trust Him: "Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life." (John 6:47)

As far as "in Christ," yes, it is a technical term. For simplicity's sake, just think of it in terms of family descent. We are all born "in Adam" in that he was our first father. When we are "born again" we are spiritually reborn "in Christ" in that He becomes our spiritual father (again, I'm being simplistic here: the technical theological terminology would object to some of this, but the point is essentially the same). At the end of time, we will be resurrected in the image of the father whom we are in -- those in Adam will receive Adam's fallen nature for eternity, and those in Christ will receive His glorified nature for all of eternity. Or, to put it in the terms I have been arguing throughout this thread, those in Adam will be severed from any and all goodness, since all goodness is rooted in God and they will be severed from their connection with God. Those in Christ will be perfectly united with Him and thus experience goodness in its fullest measure since they are in perfect fellowship with God. The important thing to remember in all of this is that both states, Heaven and Hell, are consequential, not punitive or meritorious.

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

Thump,

1. Concerning omnipotence, you would do better to check theological sources than . To give you but one reference, Aquinas put it this way: "It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely." I would encourage you to read the entire article (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q25.FP_Q25_A3.html) if you have a minute as it explains the doctrine in great detail.

2. Concerning free will, strictly speaking, the only being with truly free will is God Himself. The only sense that we can say humans have "free will" is that we are free to choose from a set of alternatives. Some of those choices are so obvious, of course, that we would never actually choose the alternative, but the choice remains.

3. Concerning God and free will, because the word "choose" is wholly meaningless unless the will is at least to some degree free, then it is logically impossible to give a being the ability to choose A without necessarily providing a B. In fact, the very possibility of choosing A itself defines, at minimum, a B, even if that B is simply ~A. For instance, let us propose a truly minimalist universe. Suppose that the only thing that exits is your consciousness and God. Suppose there is absolutely nothing else: no space, no time, no anything. Now, suppose that God impressed a knowledge of Himself directly upon your mind so that you were aware of His existence. In such a universe, there seems to be no choices of any kind to make, save one: the choice to love Him more than yourself or to love yourself more than Him. It may be that God could so construct your will that you have no choice but to love Him (although we could then debate if such a disposition on your part could be called love, but I digress), but in such a case, you could in no way be said to have chosen to love God at all. The moment God gives you the ability to choose to love Him, logical necessity dictates that you also have the choice to not love Him, but to love, instead, some other object (in this case, the only other object being yourself).

The point to this is simple enough: moral agency requires that man have the ability to choose, for where there is no choice, there is no morality; and yet, choice requires the ability to accept or reject God. This is not a limit on God's omnipotence to say that He cannot create you in such a way that you can be moral and not have the ability to choose Him. It is, rather, a simple fact of the way that reality is and the way it must be. To suggest otherwise is to suggest nonsense. We may as well suggest that God create square circles. Nonsense is nonsense, even when discussed in the context of God's omnipotence. Put differently, "square-circle" is a meaningless combination of words, and it does not suddenly gain meaning just because we prefix the words, "God can make a . . ." to them.

4. Concerning the evil nature of Hell, you assert "It is disproportionate to the "sin". It is eternal torment for a finite "sin"," and I agree. As it stands, however, I have argued that sin and Hell are essentially unrelated. You don't go to Hell for your sin, and therefore, the disproportion has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever. In that case, it doesn't matter whether punishment is meaningless or not, because Hell is not a place in which you are punished for your sins. It is simply the place in which you obtain the necessary consequences of your moral state.

5. Concerning the "goodness" of torture, I've never argued that torture or suffering are good. Quite the opposite, I've argued that there is nothing good in such a thing at all. The suffering in Hell is the presence of absolute evil, but that absolute evil is the natural consequence of separating your own self from the source of goodness. You can, at any moment, trust Him to save you.

As to why you should trust Him, I've presented some evidence that you have found unconvincing during my time here. In this thread, I've offered the nature of goodness and objective morality. You seem to believe that God is really evil. Whether or not He is doesn't matter for the simple reason that if God is really evil, then we are not talking about your personal opinion. I may think a ball is white. Whether or not it is really white is not a matter of opinion. If, then, moral statements can be made such that things really are good or evil apart from your opinion of them, then the only place in which to root such a reality is in a self-existent goodness, which we may only call, in our own language, "God." Since, then, God exists as an absolutely good being, we know by extension that Hell exists as a natural consequence of severing yourself from this source of goodness.

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

Davin,

1. Concerning the ad populum, you interpret Sophus as saying that we have evolved so as to feel pain, which I have no problem with. That does not, however, provide a basis for objective morality. You would have to then go on and say, "and we ought not cause others pain," which is a value statement. I have no reason to believe it is true. Why ought we not cause others pain? Absolutely any answer you give me will be rooted in a personal value. As such, you can either appeal to personal value, which makes morality completely subjective, relative, personal, and arbitrary, or you can apply to social agreement, which is the ad populum that I referenced.

2. Concerning goalposts, I understand what you are saying. I don't disagree in the main. We can take your original assertion that the statements prompting the charge were at best irrelevant. If, however, the posters in question actually do hold to the traditional atheist line concerning Hell, then I maintain that the goalposts have been moved by the statements in question. If the Asm. and MTK want to denounce the argument that Hell is evil, I'll drop the charge of moving the goalposts, and we can discuss their question in another thread. If they do hold to the charge, then I ask that we stay the course and discuss the actual charge to which I am responding and not the deflection that was proposed.

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

PS,

You appear to be making the same argument HS made. what makes you think that your essence changes in the resurrection? I don't think it does.

Second, Hell is not punitive. I have taken pains to demonstrate that it is not. All goodness is found in God. To any extent we are good, it is because we are related to Him. Hell is the state in which we remove ourselves from His presence forever. A necessary consequence is the removal of ourselves from any goodness. You need to show me how that is punitive to maintain your charge.

Finally, the distinction of God being essentially good and willing accordingly and things being good because God wills them is hardly a meaningless distinction. Stated formally, the two arguments would look this way:

God's nature is good.
What God wills is according to His nature.
Therefore, what God wills is good.

vs.

Something is good because God wills it.
X is something that God wills.
Therefore, X is good.

These arguments are clearly different. Secondly, God's laws did not change. If you wish, we can open a thread on that.

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

Reginus,

I reject annihilation primarily for moral reasons. There are biblical passages that imply that the torment is everlasting, but all of those have an interpretive aspect that I don't think allow for any real degree of certainty (see, for instance, Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:1-3; Rev. 14:10-11). Otherwise, I'm glad we agree on the basic argument put forward. It's a subject I think more Christians would do well to consider critically.

Quote from: "Jac3510"We are all born "in Adam" in that he was our first father. When we are "born again" we are spiritually reborn "in Christ" in that He becomes our spiritual father (again, I'm being simplistic here: the technical theological terminology would object to some of this, but the point is essentially the same). At the end of time, we will be resurrected in the image of the father whom we are in -- those in Adam will receive Adam's fallen nature for eternity, and those in Christ will receive His glorified nature for all of eternity.

Is Adam dwelling in Hell right now as we speak?

Quote from: "Jac3510"You appear to be making the same argument HS made. what makes you think that your essence changes in the resurrection? I don't think it does.

Either I will be who I am (we will be who we are) and Hell isn't so bad, or we will all suddenly become terrible, horrible people.  Which is it?

QuoteYou need to show me how that is punitive to maintain your charge.

It's not natural consequences and it's not rehabilitative.  As stated before, if I drop something heavy on my foot, the pain isn't a punishment for doing so, it's incidental to the laws of gravity and the electrical sensory in my foot.  If I rape women, the natural consequences of that include the potential to rape someone with an STD, and angering my victims' families/society.  Jail, me being murdered because I pissed someone off, etc. are NOT natural consequences, they are punitive.  Hell is not a natural consequence of anything, it is aneternal prison made by god in order to send people there AFTER HE JUDGES THEM.

QuoteFinally, the distinction of God being essentially good and willing accordingly and things being good because God wills them is hardly a meaningless distinction. Stated formally, the two arguments would look this way:

Then what defines good/evil?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Davin,

1. Concerning the ad populum, you interpret Sophus as saying that we have evolved so as to feel pain, which I have no problem with. That does not, however, provide a basis for objective morality. You would have to then go on and say, "and we ought not cause others pain," which is a value statement. I have no reason to believe it is true. Why ought we not cause others pain? Absolutely any answer you give me will be rooted in a personal value. As such, you can either appeal to personal value, which makes morality completely subjective, relative, personal, and arbitrary, or you can apply to social agreement, which is the ad populum that I referenced.

Yet again another misunderstanding, did you notice the qualification I made before that statement about evolving the ability to feel pain? I said the statement was like saying "what if we all evolved the ability to feel pain." Re-evaluate the argumentum ad populum, it's based off of saying that the majority is right, not saying that people all have something. Saying what Sophus said is an appeal to majority is like saying that the following statement is an appeal to authority, "what if people can think." You can argue about how it would still be subjective morality, but the question posed was not an appeal to majority. Also Sophus asked a question, not asserting that he was correct, as such, there was no appeal to anything, let alone that the question invoked no majority consensus.

Quote from: "Jac3510"2. Concerning goalposts, I understand what you are saying. I don't disagree in the main. We can take your original assertion that the statements prompting the charge were at best irrelevant. If, however, the posters in question actually do hold to the traditional atheist line concerning Hell, then I maintain that the goalposts have been moved by the statements in question. If the Asm. and MTK want to denounce the argument that Hell is evil, I'll drop the charge of moving the goalposts, and we can discuss their question in another thread. If they do hold to the charge, then I ask that we stay the course and discuss the actual charge to which I am responding and not the deflection that was proposed.

So you're arguing against the general reasons why people don't accept that general concept of hell, by using a different concept of hell? Well then it would appear, by your reasoning, that you are equal of the same "goal post moving" that you're accusing others of. Let's just say that neither you or anyone else posting something other than general concepts, are not moving goal posts. Also let's reserve to accusing others of using bad argument tactics to when they're using bad argument tactics.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteFor instance, let us propose a truly minimalist universe. Suppose that the only thing that exits is your consciousness and God. Suppose there is absolutely nothing else: no space, no time, no anything. Now, suppose that God impressed a knowledge of Himself directly upon your mind so that you were aware of His existence. In such a universe, there seems to be no choices of any kind to make, save one: the choice to love Him more than yourself or to love yourself more than Him.

There is a third alternative.  In the minimalist universe, one could love god as much as one loves oneself. There doesn't have to be a "shortage" position of loving god more or less than oneself.

Jac3510,

It seems that what you're saying and with agreeing with J's summary, is that the only way to avoid hell, is to believe in god, is that right?

If so, does it have to be the belief in a specific god or will the belief in any god do?

J,

There is no direct biblical statement on whether or not Adam is in heaven or hell. I would be inclined to the former based on Gen. 3:20 (the name given to her presumes that Adam believed God's promise in Gen. 3:15, which seems to indicate saving faith). If I may ask, why do you ask?

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

PS,

1. I still don't see why you think your essence will change in Hell. You will certainly be "who you are," but the goodness you experience is accidental to your essence (to return to strict philosophical language again). You are still you if you get "better" or "worse." That's easily shown enough by two examples. First, consider the man who lives a particularly immoral lifestyle (define that however you will) but as he gets older he realizes that he is on the wrong road and changes soas to become a better man. If the new goodness in him renders him a different person, then we cannot say that he ever did any of those things in his past, and if that were true, then the man could have well have been a serial murderer and could not be charged if caught in his later years, since he wasn't really "the one" who did it. The second example is just the opposite. Imagine a good man who falls into an evil lifestyle. It is clear that the same man who is now evil is the same man who was once good, for both the good actions of his past and the evil actions of his present can equally and rightly be attributed to him. I see no reason, then, to suppose that just because in Hell you lose access to the goodness you now exercise (or, more technically, that losing the goodness you now exercise is the state we call Hell) you therefore are not you, anymore than if you lose your hair, your arm, or your sight you would cease to be you.

2. Your rape example is a very good picture as to why Hell is exactly consequential. If I rape someone with AIDS, and I get AIDS, while we may speak figuratively of my getting sick being a punishment for my crime, more literally, my sickness and ultimate death is a natural consequence of what I did. Just the same is true of Hell. God is the source of goodness. If you reject God, by the same token, you reject the source of goodness. To use another example, if you choose to eat only candy your entire life you will effectively cut off yourself from all real nutrition, and the consequence will be that your life will not be very long. The same holds true with your relationship to God and ultimate fate in Hell.

Concerning the judgment, I have already argued that God does not sentence a man to Hell as a judgment for His sins. In fact, the primary passage of Scripture that actually describes people being thrown into the eternal Hell, the Great White Thrown Judgment, doesn't mention sin at all, but expressly says the reason for the condemnation is not being found in the book of life (which is to say, not having been born again in Christ).

3. Good and evil are, ontologically speaking, defined relative to God's nature. That which is good is that which is consistent with the nature of God. That which is evil is that which is inconsistent with the nature of God. Relationally speaking (which is valid, since good and evil only exist relative to others, and this even within the Godhead), good is defined as that which is in harmony with the intended state of human affairs, and evil is defined as that which is in discord with the intended state of human affairs. The intended state is a reflection of the presently existing state of affairs found within the Godhead. The upshot to all of this is that good and evil, while objectively grounded in the essential goodness of the unity of God, is extremely pragmatic in statements such as, "It is wrong to be cruel" and "It is right to be kind."

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

Davin,

1. Strictly speaking, "What if everyone evolved to feel pain" isn't any kind of argument whatsoever. However, in certain contexts, questions pose naturally as arguments, as Sophus' question was clearly doing. For instance, suppose you said to me, "We should take a different route. There was an accident on the street we always take, so we will be late if we go that way," to which I reply, "But what if it has already been cleaned up?" You can certainly be very technical and isolate the question so that it is not an argument, but that would obviously miss the point. In light of this, consider the conversation between Sophus and myself on this matter:

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. If morality is objective, God exists
2. Morality is objective
3. Therefore, God exists

I disagree with the first two. Well, actually all three. Googled it as well and found nothing on the matter. I did, however, find quite a few definitions and articles that supported just the view I have supposed here. I will, then, proceed on the well established notion that omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible until you prove otherwise.

2. Concerning the impossibility of goodness without eternal torment, I have explained this, but I will do so again in briefer terms if it helps clarify things for you.

Where there is good, there is the potential for evil by definition (because evil = ~good). It is logically impossible, then, to have goodness without the logical possibility of evil. Whether or not such a possibility is actualized is a matter of personal agency.

It is therefore impossible to give human beings moral choice without giving them the ability to choose between both good and evil, for the ability to choose good necessitates the ability to choose evil.

If God gives people the ability to choose to accept Him, this requires by definition that people have the ability to choose to reject Him.

Since God is the root of all goodness, it necessarily follows that to reject God is to reject the source of all goodness.

Since people actually do reject God, He is left with only two logical choices concerning them: 1. To override their choice and force Himself upon them in one degree or another for all of eternity, or 2. To accept their choice and remove His presence from them for all of eternity. The necessary conclusion of the latter is the state I have described and call Hell. The former would be immoral and could be labeled "divine rape," and thus, is logically impossible to an essentially good God. Therefore, given the nature of goodness itself, eternal torment is the logically necessary conclusion of those who reject God. He is incapable of doing anything other than letting you live with only yourself for all of eternity, which would be Hell as I have described it.

3. Concerning free will, no one is held hostage to anything, because we are dealing with the necessary nature of reality itself. Were God to create an arbitrary set of rules that ended up with Him sentencing people to Hell for unbelief, you would have a point. Since these "rules" are of necessity, however, then God is just as much a "hostage" to your choice as you are.

The rest of your questions assume a punitive view of Hell, which I reject, and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion at hand. My argument hinges on Hell being a logically necessary result of these two facts: 1. The essential goodness of God, and 2. The moral agency of man.

(2) is experientially obvious, and (1) absolutely must be assumed, because if it is rejected, all moral arguments against Hell are invalid anyway. That is, if God is not good, then there is no reason to suppose that He wouldn't throw people into Hell willy-nilly just to watch them burn anyway. The problem we are wrestling with is how to reconcile a good God with Hell. I have argued that, given a good God and the free moral agency of man, not only are God and Hell reconciled, but Hell turns out to be a logically necessary corollary to these basic facts.

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

Notself,

Loving something "as much as" yourself is not a valid alternative. The reason is simple enough. If you find yourself in such a situation as that you cannot logically do what is best for both yourself and the other, then you have no logical alternative other than to choose one over the other. In doing so, you demonstrate which you love more.

Now, admittedly, in our minimalistic universe, such a situation wouldn't arise, but that would only be because there is no other reality that could interfere in such a way as to force the demonstration. Just because demonstration is not possible, however, it does not follow that the thing itself does not exist. In such a case, one would eternally love God or the self more than the other, and we could simply not demonstrate which to be the case. Saying "I love God as much as I love myself" could not practically be demonstrated false, but the logic, as shown above (possible world language, and all) would force one to state forthrightly which is the case.

I, then, maintain that it is impossible to love two beings in precisely the same way. One will be loved more than the other at any given moment, and while that may often not be demonstrated, occasionally, reality is so constituted that the disparity becomes plain to see.

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.

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

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".

Quote from: "Jac3510"Davin,

[spoiler:1e9ixjal]

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. Strictly speaking, "What if everyone evolved to feel pain" isn't any kind of argument whatsoever. However, in certain contexts, questions pose naturally as arguments, as Sophus' question was clearly doing. For instance, suppose you said to me, "We should take a different route. There was an accident on the street we always take, so we will be late if we go that way," to which I reply, "But what if it has already been cleaned up?" You can certainly be very technical and isolate the question so that it is not an argument, but that would obviously miss the point. In light of this, consider the conversation between Sophus and myself on this matter:

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. If morality is objective, God exists
2. Morality is objective
3. Therefore, God exists

Quote from: "Sophus"I disagree with the first two. Well, actually all three.

1. Why should we assume such a thing? Why couldn't it mean we all evolved an objective sense of morality?
2. Morality is very very subjective, and depends upon numerous things, both within factors of "nature and nurture".

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Thus, Sophus' objection in (1) above is either completely subjective, since it is the personal (albeit evolved) opinion of each individual, or it is an appeal to the masses, since it bases its argument in the fact that all people agree on this evolved morality.

You show know that many Christians make this very mistake. They argue that since everyone agrees that this or that is wrong, then it really must be wrong, and that is proof the both the moral law and of the Moral Law Giver. But you cannot go from everyone's agreement on a thing to the thing actually existing. A thing exists or not regardless of what people think about it. Common agreement means nothing on these matters. If, then, God did create a moral law that everyone is aware of, or if we all have evolved a moral law, we cannot know whether or not such laws exist (and if they do, if they do objectively so) by measuring how many people believe it. To do so is an appeal to the masses, which is just what Sophus' original counterargument runs the risk of doing. As I myself noted, he could, of course, make an appeal to personal belief, but then, such a morality is not objective after all, and therefore, his counterargument fails.

[/spoiler:1e9ixjal]It now appears that you're intentionally missing the point: it would be equivalent to all humans being able to see and agree on the objective things they see like that the sky is blue. What if that were the way things worked, that we all had some kind way to sense objective morality? Not an argumentum ad populum, more like "what if we all could see that the sky was blue?"

[spoiler:1e9ixjal]

Quote from: "Jac3510"2. Of course I am "arguing against the general reasons why people don't accept that general concept of hell, by using a different concept of hell?" That, however, is not moving any goalposts, unless, of course, I have changed my view on Hell and why we ought to believe it or not. What I have done is to concede that you are fundamentally right in your assessment that the traditional view of Hell is evil. I am presenting, then, a different view. The goal of disproving the traditional view of Hell has not been moved. It has been, I think, successfully reached. Disproving that view, however, is not the same as disproving all views. If it did, you would not believe in evolution since Lamarckism was long ago refuted.

Returning to the basic charge I laid, however, I have asserted that Hell is fundamentally consistent with a good God, if not believable, in the view I have presented. Having met the traditional argument, though, without acknowledging it at all, both posts went on to argue that I first have to even proof that Hell or God are real in the first place. Now, that could be viewed, as you noted, as irrelevant at best, or, as I noted, as moving the goalposts at worst. It is certainly the former, and perhaps only so if neither holds to the moral argument against the traditional view of Hell. If they do hold to that argument, however, I still consider it a textbook example of bad tactic.

[/spoiler:1e9ixjal]"That, however, is not moving any goalposts, unless, of course, I have changed my view on Hell and why we ought to believe it or not." That is the same thing for Asmodean and MartinTK, unless they changed their views, which they didn't in one post.

It's a text book example of a bad tactic to treat different concepts differently? You make very little sense, it's no where near "moving goal posts" for some one to treat that different argument differently from the other argument. You brought in a different argument, then called people that treated that different argument differently than they treated the other argument, "goal post movers?" Going around and accusing people of doing bad things they're not doing is a very bad argument tactic.

[spoiler:1e9ixjal]

Quote from: "Jac3510"Finally, in a later post you said:

QuoteIt seems that what you're saying and with agreeing with J's summary, is that the only way to avoid hell, is to believe in god, is that right?

If so, does it have to be the belief in a specific god or will the belief in any god do?

I think we are reading J's summary differently. Here are his exact words:

People who don't die "in Christ," no matter how wonderful, loving, caring, creative they were, no matter how much joy they brought to themselves and others, no matter how much they loved their family as their family loved them, no matter what those people did to help others and selflessly work to improve others' lives, those people will be ressurected in what you call hell and all their goodness will be negated.

I don't see anything here about avoiding Hell by believing in God. I see something here about avoiding Hell by dying in Christ, which is just what I believe. You are an astute reader, though, and certainly careful in your details, so perhaps I have missed something in his words here or somewhere else (in the summary, of course) that imply that mere theism is enough to avoid Hell. If so, would you be so kind as to point them out, because I obviously do not believe that a generic belief in God saves. What saves is trusting in Jesus Christ for eternal life (John 6:47 - "Whoever believes in Me has eternal life").

[/spoiler:1e9ixjal]What is missing is the common knowledge premises that Jesus Christ has as much (really as little) evidence as Muhammad, Thor, Ra, Kirshnu, Lord Xenu, Unicorns, Dragons, Dancing Waffles... etc. so it's only fair to keep them on the same level of reality (not accepted as real).

So when there is insufficient evidence to believe in this Christ as the one true god/savior/half-ling/whatever, then we must suffer for it? That seems very much like a bad plan, like beating children and not telling them what they did wrong, because they should have already known what they did wrong. 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 he created everything. Even if it was a consequence beyond the power of god to prevent the suffering the people he created caused upon themselves: not ever existing is much better than eternal torture.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

Quote2.  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.

Quote3.  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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

QuoteNo, 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.

QuoteYour 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.

QuoteWhat 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.

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

No.  Mine isn't rooted in a god.

QuoteI'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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteYou 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".

QuoteAfter 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.

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

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,

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote2. 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.

Quote3. 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.

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

Demonstrate this and explain why you feel this way.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteBut, 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..."

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

Project much?

QuoteIf 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".

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

Quote from: "PoopShoot"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.

QuoteThis 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.

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteDemonstrate 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?

QuoteI 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.

QuoteBullshit.  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.

QuoteNo.  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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Sophus"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 . . .

Quote from: "Jac3510"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: ?????"

QuoteAs 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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteFinally, 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.

QuoteSecond, 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.

Quote

QuoteDemonstrate 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.

QuoteAre 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteIf 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.

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

And I care why?

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteSecond, 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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteUntil 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?

Quote1. I may not like "what God said"

Irrelevant.

Quote2. "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?

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

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

QuoteHowever, 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?

Quote from: "Jac3510"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?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Thump, try again?

To what purpose?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Davin,
[spoiler:2a37kvwg]

Quote from: "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).[/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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

If goodness is acting in accord with God’s nature then God doesn’t have the choice between good and evil since you have defined everything he does as good (and vice versa) so there is no possibility of him choosing anything other than good. This means he is not a moral agent since, according to you, moral agency requires the choice between good and evil which, as said, is not available to God as he is restricted by his inherently good nature. In which case, God’s goodness isn’t in the least bit morally praiseworthy since his goodness is no different than a snake crawling on its belly â€" it’s simply what the thing does.

This will present problems as your reasoning continues...

Quote from: "Jac"To act in a way that is contradictory to His nature is to do "evil."

Drowning thousands of children and babies because their parents were evil and disobedient is a good thing to do? (Gen 6:17) Got it.

Quote from: "Jac"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.

False dichotomy. What about morally neutral actions? Am I experiencing God when I brush my hair? If not then, according to your dichotomy, I am committing evil.

Quote from: "Jac"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.

Your reasoning is self-refuting at this point -

It would certainly be useful if the human eye could take in more of the electromagnetic spectrum than is currently visible to the naked eye, such as taking in infrared light. So, as God effectively blinded pre-technological humans to only ever seeing a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum then, according to your logic above, God committed an evil - he “deprived the eye of a function and therefore prevented humans from doing useful things such as seeing heat signatures of other creatures and objects, for example.” - and as he committed an evil then this refutes your initial premise that God is inherently good. But if you insist that God is inherently good, then depriving the eye of a function can’t be evil, but you have argued that depriving the eye of a function is an evil act. So your reasoning collapses at this point.  

Quote from: "Jac"It is dreadfully evil when one man murders another.

That’s a tautology since the term murder already connotes a wrong or evil act. Use a neutral term to avoid the fallacy of poisoning the well.

Quote from: "Jac"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.

What’s funny there is that this is typically the defence that Christians use as justification for God killing children and babies during ‘Noah’s Flood’ â€" the children would have grown up to be evil just like their parents, and God, being omniscient, knew that.  :P  

Quote from: "Jac"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.

Nope. Objective reasons for assigning values to certain behaviour can be achieved without an appeal to God when society’s have a common goal... which we do â€" survival and happiness â€" and from these shared goals we can ascertain in an objective manner what we ought and ought not to do to maximise one another’s chances of survival and happiness. In some circles this is known as the social contract.
 
If it helps, you can think of it as analogous to nutritional facts that tell individuals what they ought and ought not to eat to maintain their health. No God necessary in either scenario.

Quote from: "Jac"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.

Rubbish. Whilst people do of course have the choice to be unhealthy and live in dysfunctional societies, if they’re trying to be healthy and trying to live in functional societies then it certainly is possible to objectively determine what behaviour is right and wrong for meeting these objectives.

Absent any objectives that create a context to understand morality, morality makes no sense. Never has. Never will. Biblical moral precepts are aimed at pleasing God because pleasing God is thought to guarantee safe passage into the hereafter (survival and pleasure). Cultures that sacrificed virgins on alters to placate their gods were basing such morals on what was thought to guarantee a good harvest next season (full bellies = suvival and pleasure). What sets the different moral codes of these different cultures apart is not the fundamental objective which frames their morality but the knowledge base from which they derived their notion of what was in their society's best interest -

Fred Phelps thinks that the wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality brings the wrath of God on America, and were he right about that then it would certainly be moral to discourage homosexuality, as the wrath of an omnipotent supernatural tyrant would be bad for society. And this illustrates the importance of working from facts about the world and not from articles of faith to arrive at our model of morality, just as we do with nutritional and medicinal facts about what substances we can ingest that have a beneficial effect on our health as opposed to a detrimental effect - few Christians actually believe that their religious faith enables them to drink deadly poison and suffer no ill-effect despite what Mark 16:17-18 claims. They go with the facts, determined by what is demonstrably true. Doing so is the sensible approach.