(May 22, 2015 at 10:02 pm)Anima Wrote: I see the Lewis went over like a lead balloon. Sorry for that and I will make sure to avoid it in the future. (Though I was shocked by how many people go ad hominem right away. I thought people would give more consideration to what people are saying regardless of who is saying it... Oh well.)
The question (which I am a fan of) seeks to point out two problems for many theist:
If it is held that the soul is to be in paradise and then further held that paradise is to be pleasing in every aspect then it must follow that a person who is deprived of the presence of anyone they love, or forced to endure the presence of anyone they hate would not be pleased in every aspect and is thus not in paradise.
Second, many theist are readily willing to accept numerous horrors under the argument that it is for the greater good so long as they end up better for it. Few if any are willing to accept that they will be the sacrifice that benefits the rest. Thus the greater good is subjective to what the soul in question determines is good.
As a general response to both scenarios I would say it is held by (since it cannot be known) theist that what comes with paradise is understanding. Just as metaphysical suffering is alleviated with understanding so to is it held by theist that the condemnation of a loved one or the salvation of a detested one will be understood and subsequently perceived as right and good. There will be no pity for those sent to hell nor disgust with those sent to heaven (regardless of relation) as it will be obvious and certain it is where they should be.
Prove that paradise exists. Otherwise, your entire argument is nothing more than philosophical bull.
"What a little moonlight can do." ~ Billie Holiday
