• Banno
    In short, the occupants of hell (Koine Greek, geenna) are not the objects of God's affection.Galuchat

    Cool. God only tortures people he doesn't like.

    Can't see how this helps the case, though. Good people seem to be able to get by without torturing anyone, even those they dislike. So God is still a bit of a bastard.
  • Banno
    Knowledge entails truth, correct? If God knows that you will end up in hell then you will end up in hell. It doesn't make sense to suggest that God can choose not to create you as that would invalidate his prior knowledge. There's a conflict between God being omniscient and God having the freedom to change the outcome (so it's a type of omnipotence paradox).Michael

    That's quite an extraordinary bit of reasoning, that is. Astonishing.
  • Banno
    You're proposing that a God, should one exist, would be bound by the rules of human reason. Human reason is the poorly implemented ability of a single half insane species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies. You're essentially proposing human reason to be a god of sorts, a factor above all else.Jake

    So... there is no point in trying to understand god? Just believe?

    But if there is no way we can reason about god, then there is no reason to believe, either...
  • Jake
    So... there is no point in trying to understand god? Just believe? But if there is no way we can reason about god, then there is no reason to believe, either...Banno

    We can use reason to determine that we have no methodology proven to be capable of analyzing anything the scale of gods (should they exist). The God debate can accomplish that. Everybody (theist and atheist) makes their claims, the chosen authority each claim is built upon is examined, and we see that nobody's authority has been proven qualified for the task at hand.

    The God debate can reveal that we are ignorant, in regards to questions of such enormous scale. This is useful information.

    The problem is that few of us, theist or atheist, wish to follow the trail of reason where ever it may lead, because in this case that trail takes us to a conclusion that most people don't want to hear, we have no idea what we're talking about. This conclusion doesn't serve the ego agendas which are the primary driver of the God debate, and so this conclusion is swept aside, dismissed, ignored.

    What a reasoned process would do is...

    1) Discover the reality, that we are ignorant.

    2) Look for ways to make constructive use of that ignorance.

    The God debate could be productive if we were serious about following the trail of reason to it's conclusion. But we aren't serious. And so we hike a little ways down the trail, and then stop, and build a fort.
  • Banno
    We can use reason to determine that we have no methodology proven to be capable of analyzing anything the scale of gods (should they exist).Jake

    So much for cosmology, then.

    That is, your contention that we are ignorant is a bit too convenient to your position.
  • Jake
    That is, your contention that we are ignorant is a bit too convenient to your position.Banno

    What is my position?
  • Banno
    You don't know? Fair enough.
  • Jake
    You don't know? Fair enough.Banno

    I know what my position is. The question was intended to see if you have any idea what it is that you are rebelling against.
  • Banno
    ...and not at all trying for a rhetorical save.
  • Devans99
    We can use reason to determine that we have no methodology proven to be capable of analyzing anything the scale of godsJake

    I think you can analyse god. For example, if you are a materialist, you must deny the Actually Infinite exists, so god is finite.
  • MountainDwarf
    1 John 4:8 says God is love.Empedocles

    1 John 4:9-10 says that the way God showed his love for us was by saving us from our sins by trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus. Why trust in Jesus if there is no punishment for sin? Maybe hell could be temporary for some people?
  • Ötzi
    If I recall correctly heaven and hell were not originally part of Judaism, but later introduced under the influence of Zoroastrianism. Anyway, many seemingly contradictions are present because ideas from different sources were merged into one religion.
  • adhomienem

    I'd like to reply to your first premise, "If God is all-loving, he would not have created hell."

    In objecting to this conditional, I first want to define "hell" as the separation from the presence of God. Therefore, hell is not something created but is rather merely the natural result of God removing his existence from a place. In the same way that darkness is not a material thing, but is simply the absence of light, hell is not one of God's creations, but is just the absence of his presence.

    Ok, but that still does not answer why an all-loving god would allow for the existence of hell. This is where I bring in, as Sam26 put it, the “tired free will argument.” Let’s start with what we’ve already assumed: an all-loving god.

    If God is all-loving, then he wants what is best for every person.
    What is best for other people is not hell.
    Therefore, God does not want people to go to hell.

    If God does not want people to go to hell, they either go to hell because they are acting outside of his control, or because he allows them to go to hell regardless of his wants.
    God is all-powerful, so people do not act outside of his control.
    Therefore, God must allow people to go to hell regardless of his wants.

    This is where free-will comes into the argument. This is my basis for believing in free will:

    As the Maximally Good Being, God deserves to be loved more than any other being in the universe.
    So, God deserves to be loved by the people he created.
    Because he is also omniscient, God knows that he deserves love, and therefore wants people to love him.
    So, when he created people, God must have designed humankind with the capacity to love him.

    Forced love is not love.
    So, God cannot force humankind to love him.
    Humankind must, therefore, be capable of freely choosing to love God.
    To have the capacity of free choice is to possess free will.
    Therefore, humankind must possess free will.

    Because free will includes the capacity to choose to love God, it also includes the capacity to choose to not love God. In the Judeo-Christian religion, to not love God is to sin, so people who do not love God are sinners. God cannot be in the presence of sinners, so those who do not love God cannot be in his presence.

    Through this argument, we can see that God only had two options other than allowing for people to go to hell: (1) go against his nature, and be in the presence of sin, or (2) get rid of free will, and, by extension, the capacity for people to love God. God cannot act outside of his nature, so he could either destroy free will, or allow people to go to hell.

    This is how an all-loving God can coexist with hell.
  • Blue Lux
    When we die we all become one?
  • All sight

    I would rather say that God is not only love, but also the truth. In the library of congress there is a statue of the Goddess of truth holding a mirror and a serpent. Why is that? In the ancient Egyptian mythos one only makes it into heaven when their heart is weighed against Maat, the Goddess of truth. There is actually a lot of weighing of hearts to get into heaven, it's a common theme.

    Point is, that the truth hurts. The important stuff, the truths relating to ourselves and characters hurt the most, and we hide from that truth, delude ourselves about reality because we don't like the consequences or implications.

    There is a distinction made between perfect contrition, and imperfection contrition. Perfect contrition is because one loves God, but any form of contrition, for any reason, as long as it is felt counts, and even for the reason of loving God if the contrition is not felt, it isn't contrition at all. All that is required is the genuine remorse, for any reason, and this restores one to favor, and presence.
  • All sight
    Take it from Adele, you could be rolling in the deep.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.