Gods supposed perfection

[Esquilax]

This is what I don't understand about the argument. Why does quantity of crimes equal quantity of time?

Aren't two murders worse than one murder? I mean, if you punish someone for committing a murder, if they do it twice shouldn't the punishment logically reflect that?

As I wrote to Chad32 above, a subjective statement by definition is not factual. Every one of your above statements are subjective statements and are therefore not factual.

Neither of us have an objective view on this issue. Even if you're talking about god, god is a subject, his view is as subjective as any other. God has a mind, has feelings... regardless of the authority you wish to place on his view, it's not objective. There's no way of ensuring that god won't fall victim to the same biases that cause human subjectivity to be problematic, and the mere assertion that he doesn't, that his rule is perfect, is not compelling. The only way we're really going to have a productive conversation on this issue is if you recognize that I don't automatically afford god the authority and perfect judgment that you do; from my perspective we're both arguing from subjective viewpoints, and the superiority of god's judgment will be determined through his actions, and not the fiat assertion of authority.

How does justice fit in?

Isn't that a just outcome? The person atones for his crimes, and comes away from the situation educated and less inclined to repeat the negative behavior. Given the situation, that should really be the ideal ending.

Why do you think that God is 'unharmed' by our crimes against Him?

Ah, but this is your burden of proof to bear: can you explain how an omnipotent, out of reality creator being is harmed by, say, a completely unconnected person not believing in him? Because it seems to me that the idea that sin harms god is a complete non sequitur, and so far nobody has been able to explain what harm god comes to beyond what essentially amounts to "it's an affront to his pride/morality," and I'm sorry, but nobody has the right not to be offended, and that answer is still begging the question when it comes to god's supposed just nature.

Why are judges asked to recuse themselves in certain trials? It is because in certain situations they couldn't be (or at least we assume they couldn't be) impartial and would therefore pervert justice. If a person were to be by nature perfectly just, then there would be no reason to recuse themselves. A perfectly just judge by nature, would be impartial.

Aside from the simple assertion, what indication is there that god is just at all? Set aside your presupposition for a moment and ask yourself if execution without trial, as god is said to have done in numerous situations, is a just outcome? And if it's not just for humans, why is it just for god? Your answer, I have little doubt, will simply be a return to the assertion that god is perfectly just and therefore it's okay, but that is textbook circular reasoning.

I get it, god claims god is perfectly just, and for you that assertion is sufficient for belief. But it's not for me, and frankly, if it is for you and yet other claims, from other gods aren't, then you are special pleading. What else do you have, beyond the simple demand that god is just?

In your worldview it would be the equivalent. In the atheist worldview, a person's entire existence is from birth to death.

... Which is a finite span of time, and not infinite. My death may signal the end of my consciousness, but I am not the universe, and it will persist beyond the totality of my experience with it.

In the Christian worldview a person's existence is from birth to eternity. If a person were to be sentenced to life in prison, according to the atheist worldview they would spend the rest of their entire existence being punished. In the same way, a person suffering punishment in hell does so for the rest of his/her existence.

The issue is with the length of time though, and not how much of a person's lifespan it takes up. People die in prison all the time for crimes they committed, but they did so while serving time commensurate with the crime in question. That's not the problem, as they were given a sentence befitting the crime. The problem is that, in a hell scenario, they are given a sentence far outweighing the crime, because it is simply not possible to commit crimes sufficient to justify eternal punishment.

Consider this: if we invented a suspended animation machine that could keep prisoners alive forever and in constant pain, would it be moral to use it? Would it be moral to use it on every criminal regardless of their actual crime?

No doubt your answer to both would be no, right? But what I've described is essentially what god is doing, so what makes it okay for him to do so? If your answer is that god is just, referring back to the same circular reasoning that you've been using as justification all this time, then, well, you've got a problem there, don't you think?

But my argument wasn't drawing an analogy between a man's finite life and their eternal life. I agree the 'time frame' is different. I was merely testing the logic of your premise. You asserted that: 'Rehabilitation is impossible in an infinite punishment.' We observe situations where punishment continues after rehabilitation occurs. Ergo, it is not necessarily true that rehabilitation is impossible in an infinite punishment.

You misunderstand, and maybe I could have phrased it more clearly: rehabilitation in hell is impossible. Because hell features no outlets for the prisoners there, no means of rehabilitation, no nothing. It's just into the lake of fire to be tormented forever. You don't get out of hell. There's no qualitative judgment of your relative crime, or fitness to re-enter society, or anything. It's a one-size-fits-all, thoughtless punishment, given just to inflict pain and nothing else.

I don't know about 'more moral', but I would agree that a punishment that seeks to morally correct the punished would be better (although I do this being persuaded by you, it's still a subjective statement). This of course, assuming that the goal of punishment is rehabilitation, and also assuming the person in hell is capable of being rehabilitated.

If god is infinitely just and powerful, why wouldn't he rehabilitate those in hell?

No. Are you accountable for your choices?

Yes, I am accountable to myself, my loved ones, and the other people on this planet. But you took issue with my idea that we can't help but commit crimes against god, which is a view that only makes sense if we can avoid sinning. If we can't, then we have no choice but to commit crimes against god.

The structure of a government is amoral.

Certainly, but democracy affords the populace a more easily attained, peaceful means of ousting those in power than autocracy does.

This is the most open and honest response you've given me to date. Thank you.

No problem, it's just the truth. However, I would add that from where I'm sitting neither of us has an objective grounding for things, in the way you're thinking of.

In the way I have written above. God is able to be merciful to His believers without contradicting His nature (justice) which He couldn't do. So without the substitutionary atonement of Christ there could be no forgiveness. This is why it is written: "I saw [a]in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a [b]book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the [c]book and to break its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the [d]book or to look into it. 4 Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the [e]book or to look into it; 5 and one of the elders *said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the [f]book and its seven seals.”

Okay, let me rephrase: what is just in causing someone else to suffer for your crimes? If you allowed someone else to be executed for a crime you committed here on earth you'd be labelled a monster.

I'm pretty sure the white throne judgment isn't located in Australia.

Who knows? Lotta uncharted desert out there.

Seriously though...... ironically just the opposite. Who's law is broken, man or God's? God's. So if it's God's law that you have broken, you should be tried in God's courtroom. To throw out that system and replace it with a human system.....that would be a kangaroo court.

Why does god get to have his own law? ... Because of an assertion of authority and perfect justice that neither of us has any reason to really accept.

Round and round, the reasoning goes...