Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?

quote:
##################
You can't define God as good and then define good as anything God does. That's circular. If god is good, it's precisely because he follows a moral code of goodness that's above himself.
##################This is not a circular argument since a good God is one of the presuppositions of the Christian view of God. This assumption of a good God is evidenced as well as pre-supposed. This assumption is made in the same way an atheist pre-supposes the laws of logic, or science are valid even thought they have never been proven appart from using a curcular argument. (using logic to prove the laws of logic are true).The very fact that one would ask how that can be just, provides proof of Christianity. Given that it presupposes Christianity since it implies that there is some type of injustice possible in the world. "How can a loving God do this or that?" In an atheistic view of the world the most haneous crime imaginable would still not be wrong since there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong. Evil/right/wrong do not make sense in a world apart from Christ, who is the standard of goodness. He is that by which we attempt to compare everything else to. Again, presupposed as well as evidenced.[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-11-2003]

####
That clears up what those nice guys in the Phalange militia were telling me.
####In every philosophical system; Christian, atheist, muslim, agnostic, etc. there have been many evil and rotten people. In the same belief systems there have been many great and good people. This is irrelevent since my argument is NOT Christian are good people, therefore Christ is the standard of goodness. In fact some of the nicest people I know are agnostic or atheist. Each group has its own set of irrational,emotional,illogical, biased followers . Therefore the behavior of some has no revelance to the validity of the system in question.#######
Now if you'll excuse me, being a godless atheist, I need to go cheat the poor and eat a few babies.
#########Again, the very fact that you have brought up the concept that cheating the poor is wrong, demonstrates that there is a universal standard of right and wrong. I am not saying that Christians do not cheat the poor or eat babies. Likewise I am not saying that atheists do. I am simply saying that in the atheistic world, it doesn't make sense to have evil or good since there is no standard to measure these concepts by. THis is a perfect demonstration that these concepts exist. My point is that you can not account for them unless you borrow from the theistic interpretation, therby pre-supposing my world view. In a truly atheistic world,these concepts do not make sense and therfore atheism can not account for the realities of the world in which we live. Since God either exists or He does not, and the world can not make sense without God, God exists. Again one of many arguments for the existance of God.

######
What is the proof? Please complete the following syllogism:
premise: One would ask how that can be just.
(put proof here)conclusion: Christianity is true.
#######ok, here is a loosely compiled semi-formal proof of Christianity:
NOTE: This is one of many arguments that could be compiled to demonstrate how a reasonable, clear thinking individual, could believe the teachings of Christ to be true.Theorem: The observed experiences of life demand that God exist.1) It is impossible for God to both exist and to not exist in the universe in which we live.
2) If God does not not -exist, then He exists.
3) In an atheistic world, universal absolutes do not make sense since they can not be measured in a coherent and logical manner. Nor is there any basis for suggesting that they do exist.
4) The world we live in is filled with universal absolutes such as the laws of morality and the laws of logic.Since universal absolutes can be demonstrated to exist in the universe, and it is impossible for them to exist in an atheistic world, it is impossible for God to not exist. Therefore God exists.---------------
Now for the bridge to Christianity:
Theorem: Christianity is true.1) God exists
2) If God exists, it is most likely that He wishes to be known and that He has left some evidence of His existence to His creation.
3) Of the many religions in the world today, one of them is the correct one, they are almost all mutually exclusive with one another.
4) Christianity provides more evidence than any other as to the validity of its claims.
a. fulfilled prophecies
b. Unsearchable riches and complexity of Gods word
c. .. n number of other arguments we've all heard before5) The teachings of the religion that are the most coherent and grounded on fact as opposed to pure faith, is most likely the correct religion.Since Chrisitanity has been demonstrated to be the most convincing of all the worlds philisophical systems, Christianity is the correct religion.-----------------#######
Second, being able to ask a question does not mean that the words used in it have any meaning or existence.
#######
I agree with your statement, however I would disagree with what your conclusion on the posing of the question implies -or fails to imply. The posing of this question and the many others that are presented to theists (evil in the world as another example) do not make sense in any other world. Posing the question demonstrates that the concepts do exist and that the one presenting the question has a fundemental internal struggle with the concepts being discussed. THat is, it demonstrates that even atheists can't escape the reality of the world in which we live. That reality is filled with universal absolutes(morality,logic,etc). The laws of morality are one of the more simpler to provide evidence for. On what basis do we have to suggest that a God is immoral in His actions.######
Third, the existence of injustice does not presuppose Christianity.
#####
I would argue that it does. Injustice is allowed within the Christianity. On what basis can you judge injustice by apart from some universal standard? I will agree that it does not provide a single handed proof of Christianity, since other religions account for injustice in a similar manner ( a holy/just God), but at least within Christianity you can begin to discuss the alleged injustice in a logical manner since one of the presuppositions is that there is an absolute standard of justice, namely Gods actions.###########
I am an atheist with (obviously) an atheistic view of the world. I would never claim that the most heinous crime imaginable will not be wrong.
############
I would never sugest that you or anyone else for that matter thinks that horrible crimes are not bad. The argument is not that atheists are bad or that Christians are good. The argument is that their worldview can not account for their beliefs. Again, you have just stated that the most heinous crime is wrong. I would ask on what basis can you make this claim. Please provide a proof similar to the one you asked me to provide. Saying it is so will not suffice. The proof in Chrisianity is quite simple. The moral absolutes we see and discuss reflect the charecteristics of a moral God. Again, Christ is the standard of goodness- a presupposition of Christianity.#########
Many cultures have a sense of right and wrong without being Christian.
#########
Again, I would agree. But how can this sense exist apart from some universal standard of right and wrong. In fact, on what basis do you have to claim that many cultures have a sense of right and wrong. What is the exact definition of right and wrong. Within Christianity, the claim can be made that they have a sense of right and wrong as part of their being, and that this sense, reflects the nature of an all good God, and that His goodness is that by which we measure all goodness from.Thanks for the reply...Kyrie eleison

###
That doesn't mean it was ordained by god.
####
In and of itself you are correct. However this concept does not make sense in an atheistic world. It can be explained adequately to account for the realities of the world in which we live. More on this below....####
You are confusing the concept of "universally accepted" with "cosmically ordained."
####
The laws of morality simply reflect the nature and character of God - a presupposition of Christianity. I would disagree with the statement that these laws are merely universally accepted. I will demonstrate why further down.##########
Sure there is: Our own experiences, thoughts, desires, and philosophies are the standards. For example, one can easily get the concept of the golden rule from taking a purely selfish view: I wouldn't want this to happen to me, so I shouldn't do it to others and similarly, I'd like other people to treat me that way, so I should do it to others.
############What we are arguing here is that I believe these laws of morality are God ordained, you believe they are conventions within societies. While this makes sense on a first glance, upon further examination, it is not a sufficient explanation for any number of cases I can throw at you.
1) In some ancient societies it was ok to sacrifice your first born to a God. In others (such as ours), it is not. According to your monopoly analogy, the culture that thinks its ok to kill there first born is simply playing with some modified rules and that their rules are ok since it's within their household. I would maintain that this is one more example of how the best explanation atheism can come up with, fails to deal with the realities of the world in which we live. Why is it that it is simply wrong to kill your first born? This transcends cultural barriers and is wrong because it violates Gods holiness and His moral absoluteness. It is wrong because in doing this, you would be behaving in a manner contrary to God.2) A male might want to rape a female because it makes him happy -- and he may even think that it makes her happy. In fact he may wish that he could be raped (following the golden rule principle). However you would be hard pressed to say that the beliefs of one could justify the commission of a horrible crime such as rape. Again, atheism can not deal with these realities in a coherent logical manner. Further demonstrating that as a philosophical system, it is bankrupt.######
The existence of atheists shows this to be wrong. The world is apparently quite sensible without god.
#####
Using only one argument, the existence of the laws of morality, philosophers have demonstrated how the atheist world view can not give a logical account. While it is true that atheists exist, that does not prove that the world is sensible without God. The atheist world view continues to suppress the truth about this, choosing to ignore rather than deal with the metaphysical realities of the world we live in.######
Why are you putting your stock in an illegitimate argument?
######
This is one of many arguments that theists can provide giving reason to believe in a God. Of the 1000's of formal proofs presented throughout history, if one is proven correct, then the system is valid. I have found that most atheists are extremely intelligent yet they fail to grasp the more fundamental questions and can not deal with the realities of the world in which we live. The monopoly example is one more example of this in my humble opinion. It makes a little sense on the surface, but as you peel the layers away I find it extremely oversimplified and lacking in substance.Thanks for the reply and sincerity in your response,Kyrie eleison

##########
So, you acknowlege that one needs not use Christ as a standard of goodness to live a good life. You personally define Christ as a standard of goodness. Atheists do not, and use commonly accepted social norms to define a standard of goodness. They coincide. The particular "standard" is thus irrelevant - we use the same standard
########
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you have no basis for your claims. While I acknowledge that both views contain followers within it that act both bad and good, and that atheists have a sense of right and wrong, the logical dilema that they have is that their worldview can not account for this. They have to borrow from the Theistic world view in order to make these claims of alleged injustice. Atheism as a philisophical system can not account for laws of morality, laws of science or any other universal invariant abstract entity. You can make a claim that raping a child is wrong, but I would demand you show me evidence. The monopoly analogy has been demonstrated to be oversimplified and can not withstand the simplest of scrutiny that I could produce. Why is it that raping a child is wrong? Do you agree that this is wrong? if so why? In some cultures it might be ok. Who are you to say that they are wrong in doing this? This struggle that you are having with explaining how an absolute moral truth can exist, demonstrates how the atheistic world can not make sense. It can not account for the transcendental truths that exist in the world. The only way around this is for you to deny that there are moral absolutes. I would then argue that you are choosing a much more complicated and unbelievable system of thought, than that wich is the obvious answer. Does this prove Christianty? In and of itself perhaps not, however it at least provides a starting point for our discussion on whether or not Christianity is a valid religion. Atheists continue to complain about scraps that they see. They continue to pose problems of evil, problems of injustice in how God might or might not be. In doing this, they are demonstrating that these universal invariant abstract entities exist, yet their worldview can not account for them. This is illogical and irrational at best.###
Societies which turn to rampant crime and anarchy are self-destructive;
######
Agreed. Perhaps this is why God chose to reveal the concept of sin to us. Not because He wanted to be the great party kill joy but perhaps because He understands the destructive nature of immoral behavior.########
On the mental level, there is a further issue: meaning. To pursue anything in life, you need a sense of purpose. A primitive creature may be able to simply consider whatever its desires are as "purpose", but in a highly social, thinking creature, who doesn't spend its life focused soley on subsistance, there needs to be meaning to life. Without it, why go on living? Each person has to define their own meaning in the universe.
######
This still does not address the problem of a lack of moral absolute truths. If moral truths were defined to be relative, or that which is perceived by an individual to be right or wrong, then the culture that tortures their young in sacrifice to some god are not really wrong. They are doing what makes sense to themselves and are therefore justified in doing this. I can hear you now, "but if it causes harm to others then it violates there happiness and is therefore not allowed". I could produce a number of moral atrocities that could be perceived to be helping a species or culture, however would still violate a moral truth and still be atrocious to our conscience. Even still there is no justification for even making this claim apart from what ever you have arbitrarily decided to produce. I am simply stating that the universe does not make sense if there is no God, with no absolutness. Since the atheistic universe is incoherent and illogical, failing to deal with the numerous realities of the world in a concise manner, I maintain that the theistic approach is correct-given the impossibility of the contrary.########
Some take it a step further, and choose "deliberate good". There is no promise of reward, no eternal benefit, but we choose things that are often of a detriment to ourselves for the benefit of others.
########
In all honesty I do appreciate that these acts of kindness are committed without regard to ones self. They are simply done because it makes sense to you or for whatever reason. I would add that most Christians do the same. Acts of kindness are done not to gain favor with God or to earn something in heaven, rather they are done in gratitude to our Savior and because He has sovereignly commanded us to do these things. Even still this line of reasoning is still irelevant. The fact that you do good, for non-selfish reasons, has no relevance as to the validity of the claims I am making. In fact they actually provide more evidence suggesting the theist worldview is correct, since you are demonstrating that there is a concept of right and wrong, which you might claim to adhere to. Again, atheism can not account for these conecpts. If you can please show me (no more conventional/sociological/monopoly arguments either). Until then, I maintain that atheism can not account for the simple realities of the world in which we live, and therefore is an illogical/disproven system of thought.Thanks for the feedback...
Christe eleison

My apologies for the slow reply. As I think you know I have been actively defending a position similar to this on another thread --Problems with atheistic evolution. Which statement is false? you will have to clarify what you disagree with on this. Do you contend then that there are universal absolutes within your atheistic worldview? If so which ones? Or that there is in fact a basis for suggesting that they do exist? Please provide evidence to back up this assertion. I have demonstrated repeatedly my claims that these concepts do not make sense within atheism -in particular on the thread we are both debating on concerning fallacies within atheistic evolution. I am confused, you said my claims were false above, yet now you claim that the laws of morality and the laws of logic are not absolute. Again, what is absolute then in your mind? I contend that within the laws of logic proper, there is no variation. I would agree that an illogical system could postulate a set of logic and even claim them to be law-like that could have some variation, however this system would be illogical. If this were not true this debate is meaningless. In fact, the universe itself and in particular mathematics would be meaningless since nothing would make sense. The laws of logic which both mathmaticians borrow from and that scientists dependup would be conventional and as such there would be no basis for their usage. It would be meaningless to use them since in doing so you would be using an imperfect tool. I am not contending that the laws of logic as defined by men are absolute, but that there exists within the reality of our world, a set of laws of logic, seen and used by man that reflect the nature and character of God. Mans nature is to abide by these laws of logic and in doing this man has compiled systems of logic in an attempt to quantify the laws of logic. The same can be said for morality but it is even simpler to demonstrate. Atheists will go through great lenghts to deny these universal absolutes in an attempt to make their worldview intelligable. In doing this , they deny simple truths and loose their ability to speak rationaly or to even sustain a rational debate. If you do not agree that the laws of logic are universal, invariant abstract entities then we can not debate. I simply stipulate that within my convention, God exists therefore He exists. You, being a rational man would not accept this tautology would you? Yet without invariant universal laws of logic, you are forced to. Again, atheism can not sustain a rational debate. Therefore I once again maintain that atheism is an unitelligable worldview that can not account for the realities of the world in which we live. I have demonstrated evidence for these premises repeatedly on our other thread and some on this (inconsistencies within atheistic evolution). It would be silly to ask for a mathematical proof concerning any of this. You are a mathematics teacher and should know better. How could I even begin to give a mathematical proof that would provide any relevance to what we are talking about. Do you mean a deductive or inductive proof using propositional logic?? I contend at a minimum I have provided a loosely compiled set of logical inductive proofs for my claims. At the top level, they are deductive in nature. Demonstrate to me using inductive or deductive reasoning, how the atheist universe can account for absolute truths, logic or morality as two of the many I claim to exist. Anyone can make a claim, please show proof. I have at least begun to provide evidence to back up my claims you have not. Namely,
1) what is the basis for your system of morality This claim is counter intuitive. You can make this claim, but in doing so you defy the realities of this world. This violates the simplest concepts that govern reality. How can you say there is no universal standard of right and wrong while our intuitive nature says there is. Again, you have to twist the reality of the world to fit into your worldview. This is irrational at best. You choose to abide by the laws of logic when its convenient but altogether deny the laws of morality to fit into your worldview. This is not science. This is not a logical approach to dealing with reality. Again, you should know better. I am sure even your (unbiased)atheist comrades would agree with me on this one.I am not attempting to insult your intelligence in this discussion. In fact the contrary. I am simply suggesting that if one examines these concepts with more thought than what is typically exerted, one would see that the philisophical and logical implications of atheism, in context with the observed realities of this world make for an unintelligable system of thought. Not that atheists are unintelligable, but that their philosophy of the world is filled with logical fallacies (or unnatural apriori assumptions at best) which are far more complex to deal with than any alleged problem with the concept of hell. Suppressing the truth....Even still, thanks for the feedback...Christe eleison

I too appreciate the dialogue we are having. Take care...Christe eleison

Thanks for the observation Chiroptera. This discussion has been going on for a couple days now on this thread as well as in the "Is it Science" forum. In the process of the discussion I have been asked to provide various definitions for the words I have been using. Concepts of universal absolutes, invariant abstract entities, and God itself have been used. For the sake of clarity I am in the process of putting together a more formal statement that we can use to base our discussion on. Since I am the primary one making a claim of absolute truths within the universe (and what their alleged existence might mean concerning the existence of God) it is fair(and should be expected) that I make clear what exactly I am saying. Therefore, I will be starting a new thread shortly which will attempt to keep the discussion focused and purposeful.