Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?

As Eddie Izzard said in his routine:"So my choice is 'or death'?"------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

grace2u responds to Rei:

quote:

---

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.

---

That doesn't mean it was ordained by god.Time to bring out the Monopoly example again.Monopoly is a game created by humans for humans to play. The rules were created by humans and are administered by humans. They are completely arbitrary and can even change from one household to another. For example, a common variant is that all the money that is collected by Chance and Community Chest cards is placed under Free Parking and whoever lands there gets whatever money is there at the time.You are confusing the concept of "universally accepted" with "cosmically ordained."

quote:

---

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.

---

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.Just because I am the one that judges the actions and creates the standard doesn't mean those judgements or standards don't exist.The rules of Monopoly are created by humans, but they still exist. And if you break those rules, you're cheating.

quote:

---

Since God either exists or He does not, and the world can not make sense without God, God exists.

---

The existence of atheists shows this to be wrong. The world is apparently quite sensible without god.

quote:

---

Again one of many arguments for the existance of God.

---

And one of the many illogical ones.Why are you putting your stock in an illegitimate argument?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

grace2u responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Why? You keep asserting this, but you provide no evidence for it. If there can be absolutes without god, what is the problem? The rules of Monopoly are absolute. If you break them, you're cheating. And yet, the rules of Monopoly are created not by god but by humans.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are confusing the concept of "universally accepted" with "cosmically ordained."

---

​

The laws of morality simply reflect the nature and character of God

---

But the existence of atheists who have the same morality directly contradicts this. The laws of morality, it seems, can come from somewhere other than god.

quote:

---

a presupposition of Christianity.

---

But you're being asked to prove that, not assume it.Since atheists come up with moral codes, then it must necessarily be the case that morality does not require god. Since atheists have a sense of right and right, then it must necessarily be the case that right and wrong are not defined solely by god.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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,

---

Irrelevant.The existence of atheists shows you to be wrong. You can believe that all you want, but atheists have no belief in god and yet still have laws of morality. Therefore, morality is not necessarily god-ordained.

quote:

---

you believe they are conventions within societies.

---

That's an observation, not a belief.

quote:

---

1) In some ancient societies it was ok to sacrifice your first born to a God. In others (such as ours), it is not.

---

That's because the society accepted it. Morality is a social contract carried by the members of the group who share it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Precisely.And as long as everybody in the group agrees with that, it is.

quote:

---

Why is it that it is simply wrong to kill your first born?

---

Who said it was?Your Christian god seemed to think it was OK and his servant, Abraham, didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it because, after all, god told him to. He didn't think that god was going to stop him. God said to do it, so he was all set to go through with it.Why is it when your god tells you to kill your first born, it's "right" but when somebody else listens to his god and goes through with it, it's "wrong"?

quote:

---

2) A male might want to rape a female because it makes him happy -- and he may even think that it makes her happy.

---

What does the woman think?You're ignoring the fact that morality is something that is agreed to by all the people involved in the society. I think it's safe to say that the people being raped don't seem to think it's "right."

quote:

---

In fact he may wish that he could be raped (following the golden rule principle).

---

As the cliche goes, you can't rape the willing.

quote:

---

However you would be hard pressed to say that the beliefs of one could justify the commission of a horrible crime such as rape.

---

Indeed. That's because morality deals with not only with personal attitudes towards oneself but also societal attitudes. It requires complicity on all members of the group or it's merely anarchy.

quote:

---

Again, atheism can not deal with these realities in a coherent logical manner.

---

Sure they can.We as a society have decided that it is wrong. What does god have to do with it?Since atheists routinely decide that rape is wrong, their mere existence proves you wrong. Why don't you ask an atheist and see what he has to say about the subject?

quote:

---

Further demonstrating that as a philosophical system, it is bankrupt.

---

So atheists have no morals?So why are there so many atheists who have morals?Their existence proves you wrong.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

But the existence of atheists shows this to be wrong. The world is apparently quite logical without god.The fact that "philosophers" assert something doesn't mean they're right. You can shout all you want about how atheism has no way to develop morality, but the simple fact that there are atheists with morality shows that claim to be wrong.You can whine all you want about how there cannot be a mailbox at the corner of Main and Elm, but the fact that we're standing here on that corner looking at the mailbox shows that claim to be wrong.

quote:

---

While it is true that atheists exist, that does not prove that the world is sensible without God.

---

Then how could the atheists exist? They make sense of the world and do so without god. Therefore, it is possible to make sense of the world without god.

quote:

---

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.

---

How? Be specific. If you're saying that they are "suppressing the truth" regarding the existence of god, well, they can make the same claim about you. Who are we supposed to believe?

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

But you're confusing your personal inability to see how there is no god with some universal reality.

quote:

---

Of the 1000's of formal proofs presented throughout history, if one is proven correct, then the system is valid.

---

But there is no formal proof of god.

quote:

---

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.

---

Has it not occurred to you that they make the identical argument about you?Who are we supposed to believe?

quote:

---

The monopoly example is one more example of this in my humble opinion.

---

Indeed. You may be extremely intelligent, but you fail to grasp the more fundamental questions and cannot deal with the realities of the world in which we live. The Monopoly example is one more example of this, in my humble opinion.The existence of atheists proves you wrong.

quote:

---

It makes a little sense on the surface, but as you peel the layers away I find it extremely oversimplified and lacking in substance.

---

Indeed.Your "proof" makes little sense on the surface and as you peel away the layers, it is apparent that it is nothing but an argument of "It's true because I say so."How can the world not make sense without god when there are atheists around who do just that?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

grace2u responds to Chiroptera:

quote:

---

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.

---

And yet, the existence of rational atheists proves you wrong.You can whine all you want about how there cannot be a mailbox on the corner of Main and Elm, but the mere fact that we are looking at it proves you wrong.

quote:

---

I have demonstrated evidence for these premises repeatedly on our other thread

---

No, you haven't.You have merely asserted them.

quote:

---

How could I even begin to give a mathematical proof that would provide any relevance to what we are talking about.

---

You could start by supporting your propositions. For example, how do you establish that something is "absolute"? Even better, you could start by defining your terms. What do you mean by "morality"?Don't worry about the level of math. I am a trained mathematician and will be able to understand most of what you would write.

quote:

---

I contend at a minimum I have provided a loosely compiled set of logical inductive proofs for my claims.

---

No, you haven't.You've merely spewed a list of assertions.

quote:

---

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.

---

The mere existence of atheists is proof. Atheists have morality, some of those tenets of their morality are considered absolute, therefore the atheist universe can account for absolute truths, logic, and morality.The fact that you do not understand how they do this is not sufficient. It merely requires that those traits exist. They do, ergo, the claim is proven.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no universal standard of right and wrong.

---

​

This claim is counter intuitive.

---

Incorrect.This claim is an observation.Even on such basic things such as killing, there is no universal standard. Some people claim that it is never, ever OK to kill somebody. Not even in self-defense. Others think that defending your own life is worth taking someone else's. Look at the debate over the death penalty. If there were a universal standard, then we would all be in agreement.Since we're not, then there isn't.

quote:

---

You can make this claim, but in doing so you defy the realities of this world.

---

Incorrect.You have it exactly backwards. Denying this claim defies the realities of this world.There is no universal standard of right and wrong.

quote:

---

This violates the simplest concepts that govern reality.

---

Incorrect. It is an observation of the most fundamental reality.

quote:

---

How can you say there is no universal standard of right and wrong while our intuitive nature says there is.

---

Because intuition is the worst standard to judge anything. Intuitively, the sun goes around the earth.Observation is much better.Since observation tells us that there is no universal standard of right and wrong, then intuition is wrong.

quote:

---

Again, you have to twist the reality of the world to fit into your worldview.

---

Incorrect.In fact, you have it exactly backwards. You are the one twisting the reality of the world to fit into your worldview. You are certain that atheists are...well...insane (or did you mean something else when you said, "they deny simple truths and loose their ability to speak rationaly or to even sustain a rational debate"?) And yet, simple observation shows that they are not.Therefore, the only way to maintain the claim that atheists are insane is to twist reality to suit your worldview.The mere existence of atheists shows you to be wrong.

quote:

---

This is irrational at best.

---

You just proved my point.Is there a particular reason why you feel the need to call atheists insane?

quote:

---

You choose to abide by the laws of logic when its convenient but altogether deny the laws of morality to fit into your worldview.

---

Incorrect.Atheists have laws of morality.Therefore, your claim is proven incorrect.

quote:

---

This is not science. This is not a logical approach to dealing with reality.

---

You mean observation isn't science? Observation isn't a logical approach?You just said that your standard is intuition.Given how counter-intuitive the universe actually is (the earth goes around the sun, velocity is relative instead of linear, most everything is quantized rather than analog), what on earth makes you think that following your intuition is sufficient evidence for anything?

quote:

---

quote:

---

but as a mathematics instructor, if anyone were to write a mathematical proof this poorly they would get a zero for their efforts

---

​

Again, you should know better. I am sure even your (unbiased)atheist comrades would agree with me on this one.

---

Well, I am a mathematician, grace2u (whether or not I am an atheist being immaterial).I, too, would fail you. You have not proven your claim. You haven't even defined your terms. All you have done is spew a list of assertions.

quote:

---

I am not attempting to insult your intelligence in this discussion.

---

No, you're just insulting.Or is there some other way to take being called a lunatic?

quote:

---

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.

---

But the fact that they exist and are intelligible proves you wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

Prove it.

quote:

---

Suppressing the truth....

---

Yes.You are.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

WILLOWTREE responds to me:

quote:

---

Yes that is the choice and just because you reject the choice doesn't mean you are exempt from the consequences.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, WILLOWTREE. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!Well, Bob, WILLOWTREE has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, WILLOWTREE gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!