Is Hell or Prison the best cure for immorality?

[Esquilax]

A bug is still conscious although not self aware to the extent that we are. Insects have the capability of choice, it is just less limited.

Yeah, what I'm saying is that it's not a binary "conscious/not conscious" system, but rather a scale of complexity. The bug is significantly less complex than we are, to the point where it may not even be sentient in some respects, and so killing one is more acceptable.

My second point is also important, in that just because killing a bug might be acceptable doesn't mean one should shrug off their respect for life and kill them unnecessarily. It is morally correct to only spread suffering for reason.

Now you are entering an old Islamic debate since in Islam angels are viewed as perfect and void of free will and always doing what God wants them to yet humans and jinn have free will and can deny what God wants them to do.

Not really sure what this bit has to do with my point.

Hmm, well I guess I should be more clear on the fact that I am specifically referring to a panendeistic/panentheistic god so to say human morals are relevant to such an entity still does not make sense. As I said before, everything exist because it has to, I am not necessarily referring to modal realism since I am a theological idealist but the conceptualization for the need for a contradictory existence is mandated. How can god possess the 3 "O"s and not hold dominion or creatorship in any set of hypothetical universes? If it is omniscient then it should be aware of all things in all universes no matter their contradictory nature. The same applies for the other two qualities and natures. As I said before, God is the most superior entity imaginable plus more so you cannot limit a god no matter how hypothetical the conclusion is.
So to still say a God should be accepted upon human conditions is illogical considering it should also be accepted in accordance to the conditions of other species and possibly aliens more advanced than us. The phrase "he is our sustainer" does not mean that God gives bread and wine to people.

I think you're missing my point: if you have an omnipotent god, there's nothing that he requires, right? Anything he desires he can just make, no effort, and no usage of resources to accomplish it. For a god like that, hell becomes a completely redundant concept; he doesn't need to send anyone there, nor would he be particularly impacted by people if he chose not to send them there. For an omnipotent god, the choice to send people to hell is one he wasn't required to make, and one that serves no purpose for him; it is needless, and therefore cruel.

I wouldn't say that God is crushing ants for no reason. Especially if those ants are apart of your body. You are asserting that when I say God I am implying that we are detached from God somehow. Considering that I assert that all of existence is a reflection of consciousness of a god then how would you apply this to god we are literally apart of god.

In that case I'd point out that we do stop people from self harming, too.

A computer was a bad analogy now that I think of it. Sorry but I am a techy so 90% of all my thoughts consist of binary numbers and Linux commands. I swear my brain is nothing but a 1 TB SSD .
I used a computer because I was sure you would immediately assert that is is property which of course is untrue because you assert that sentiences negates ownership.
So how about we make that sentient being your arm and that arm does not do as you command. Little more better I suppose.

Like, if my arm was sentient right now? Same deal, I suppose; we don't kill sentient beings out of convenience. Granted, I'd probably be pissed at losing the thing, but if it's thinking and moving independently it's hardly a part of me anymore, is it?