Hey!

I agree on the fact that the problem of Hell is quite unsettling to me too when thinking of God as an omni-benevolent being. However, I think there are a few viewpoints that might be able to ease your stress about His sentencing people to hell/purgatory/something of the sort.

God’s descriptions as a loving and nurturing being remind me of that of a mother’s, which brought me to an idea.

Thinking back on your childhood, I’m sure there are countless examples of a mother, father or elder figure in your life punishing you for doing something wrong: i.e. stealing a friends toy, harming a sibling, etc. The punishments they enforced were (at the time) by no means fun or wanted. But, I’d argue they were necessary or at least beneficial in the grand-scheme of things. I would also argue that SOME punishment (although often times physically and or mentally painful) CAN be made out of love.

Such as your mom fiercely scolding you for pushing your sister, does this mean that she has stopped loving you in the moment of her scolding? Probably not, but the punishment may trick us into believing so.

Although the comparison may seem dis-analogous between God’s omni-benevolence and that of a Mother’s love and eternal damnation to Hell to that of a Mother’s scolding, but I believe the connection helps nonetheless.

Perhaps the above connection is more of a supporting claim for the idea of purgatory rather than the idea of eternal damnation to hell. I believe the above scenario of a Mother’s punishment couldn’t be soundly applied towards an argument justifying Hell because of the potential to improve after the Mother’s punishment. If you could argue that a Mother could punish a child for eternity out of love, then you might have an argument for Hell. But I can’t seem to offer that to ya…

To sum up my thoughts very briefly

1. If you can punish out of love, then an omni-benevolent being can punish.
2. You can punish out of love, so an omni-benevolent being can punish.
3. God is an omni-benevolent being, so God can punish

Bridget you are a superstar !!!

I have to disagree with premise 2: In comparison to human beings, Animals are weak and helpless beings.

Some animals have the ability to walk, run, and fight off predators just minutes after being birthed from the womb.
Octopuses can morph their physical bodies to fit into holes with a 1-inch diameter all while camouflaging their appearance to blend in with the coral.
The mako shark can swim 46 mph and jump 30 feet in the air to catch its prey.
Monkeys can effectively communicate in sign language.
Pigs and dogs have saved people drowning in lakes.
Elephants and monkeys cleverly use tools to help them easier perform their daily tasks.
Cheetahs can outrun your car on a freeway by sprinting at 65-75mph

To say animals are weak and helpless is inaccurate. What it appears we as humans may be doing is comparing animals’ abilities and their intelligence to that of humans. In other words, we are letting our telos dictate another species’ worth.

To understand animals’ worth properly, it is necessary to define what it means to be a certain being and to understand what constitutes as the welfare of that certain being. Aristotle’s notion of telos is a good framework for doing so. Aristotle discusses the concept of telos for humans, which can rationally be extended to that of non-human animals, simplified as ones potential to do or become. A helpful parallel to aid understanding of this notion, given by Jes Harfeld, is that of a hammers telos. Describing a hammer by its shape, weight, and color does not give adequate information about its end purpose. In order to accurately comprehend “hammer” one must go beyond physical attributes and thus understand its potential to hammer a nail into wood, or something of the sort. Of course, the telos of living beings are far from relevant to that of an inanimate object. To understand the telos of a living being is to understand what fulfills the interest of that being, determined by their specific beings, characteristics and biology. This will inform us of what constitutes as their welfare. It is important to note, and may seem obvious to some, that in order to fulfill interests, a being must have life, a platform in which these interests can materialize, in which they can become reality. This is a necessary aspect of telos.

Labeling animals as weak and helpless by comparison to humans’ telos is like using the guideline of a good hammer to define whether or not the screwdriver you bought works well. This has obvious disanalogies.

So, if animals are not weak and helpless beings, then why should we treat them with care? How do we treat them?

I do stand by my belief that viewing animals as weak and helpless is not an accurate justification as to why we must treat them with care, but rather that it is a Christian duty to treat all of God’s creation with kindness and care, and that having the telos of the being in mind when figuring out how to do so is important.

I agree that the technological advancements of today, and those of tomorrow, are extremely progressive and powerful. Many of these advancements can perform tasks humans could not: sorting/categorizing thousands of data electronically at the click of a button, record-breaking efficiency in production of materials, immediate distribution of information worldwide, etc…

But I cannot say I confirm your concluding thought/question: we are “unknowingly creating god on earth”
Nor the one that follows it: “Were we put here to begin a chain of reactions leading to a technological god emerging on Earth?”

Perhaps I am wondering what you’re meaning by God in this scenario. If you’re referring to the omniscient, all-holy, and all powerful God, then I think your question can be answered by breaking down your thought into three questions:

A. Can you unknowingly create something?
1. To this I would answer yes:
1. Accidentally spilling paint on a blank piece of paper and creating “art.”
2. Unknowingly creating drama by telling your friend something you didn’t know was supposed to be kept secret.

B. Can you create your creator?
2. To this I would answer no:
1. A table cannot create the machine/human that built it
2. Humans cannot create a divine being such as God
3. We cannot create our parents

C. Can you create something similar to your creator?
3. To this I would answer probably:
1. We probably have the technology or will soon have it that will allow us to clone humans. Will they have the exact memories and experiences of our parents? probably not, which is why I’ll leave it at “something similar to our creator”

As answered above, we can unknowingly create but we cannot unknowingly create our creator (for we can’t even knowingly create our creator).

But C. Leaves us with another question. If we can create something similar to our creator, is man-made technology something similar to God?

It seems the “God” as used in your post, is not intended to be defined as the Holy and omniscient God, but rather is presented as analogous to a powerful being (since the trait of power is stressed in your post).

Although, as stated above, technology can perform tasks that humans cannot (just as God can perform tasks that humans cannot) AND with the looming invention of (far from flawless) Artificial Intelligence, we STILL have power over technology that we do not similarly have over God. As of now, we have the power to destroy technology, to alter it, to control it, to dismantle it. We do not have the power to do that with a God. This question could be interesting in 50 years when robots might take over the world; however, as of now, we are still the creators of technology, but can never be the creators of God.

This is why they are not similar enough, and thus, why we cannot be unknowingly creating a God

It appears your argument goes as follows:

1. A dictator is a being wishing omnipotence.
2. God is a being wishing omnipotence
3. God is a dictator

Understanding that your argument seems to be claimed more out of curiosity than genuine belief of the above premises/conclusions, I just laid it out this way so it was easier for me to analyze.

I disagree with premise one and two. I’ll represent my disagreement through a counterarguemnt that goes as follows:

1. God is perfectly good, omnipotent, and powerful
2. A dictator is not perfectly good, omnipotent, and powerful
3. Thus, God cannot be a dictator.

Although it can be understood that God obtains some qualities in which a dictator would too hold: (power, striving to be omnipotent although God is and no dictators actually are). It is still quite obvious as to why God cannot be declared an actual dictator.

But is He dictator-like? And if so, is this concerning to theism?

I’d argue that because of his gift of free-will and Divine love/knowledge, God is not dictator-like.
Dictators, as both defined in the dictionary and defined through real events, come with negative connotations due to their tendencies to stress personal agendas and beliefs through the control of populations by rule and force.

Although it is arguable that God has personal agendas of His own: Being good, for His people to be good, and for His people to believe in Him, I’d argue he does not control us through rule and force as He grants us will free-will, gives unconditional love, and forgiveness.

One concept that looks a little bad for God in the “God or Dictator” argument is the damnation to eternal Hell. Is this a dictator-like consequence? Is Heaven vs. Hell controlling the population by rule and force?

I would still argue no, because of the admittance to hell as a result of evil.

What constitutes as evil to God, I am still unsure. But because of His understanding of our sinful nature, His forgiveness, love, and His knowledge, it seems an act defined as “Evil” by God (a perfectly omnipotent, loving being) is an act deserving of Hell.

The gift of freedom is not congruent to the gift of living without consequence. Freedom to act and behave as one wishes goes hand in hand with consequence. Per example, one has the law given right of free speech, but this does not guarantee one consequent-free speech.

Understandably, eternal Heaven v. Hell is quite a large gift v. consequence making it seem quite plausible that we are pressured to not behave as free individuals based on knowing our possible future at hand. However, I would argue you can be free whilst knowing the consequences of your behavior.

*I also think it is important to elaborate on the definition of evil and determining the large distinction of Sin v. Evil. God punished us with sin and knows, as humans, we are sinful by nature, thus granting us forgiveness for these sinful actions he knows we will commit as free individuals. However, sin does not constitute evil.

The Divine definition of evil I do not know, but I still argue that you can be free whilst aware of your action’s consequences.

1. If you have free will, you can act as you please
2. If you act as you please, there will be consequences: Heaven or Hell
3. If you have free will, then there will be consequences: Heaven or Hell
4. If there will be consequences: Heaven or Hell, then you are aware of the consequences
5. If you have free will, then you are aware of the consequences