If God sent your child to Hell.

[Aroura]

So, by your logic a rock does not exist because it does not have free-will. That's what I'm getting from this. Only free-will causes existence. That's the dumbest argument for free-will I've ever heard. But a rock isn't alive, so I guess you'll go there.

What about a jellyfish? We can agree that it is alive, I hope? Yet it has no brain, does it posess free-will? What is the cause of free-will, then? Do only humans have it, not say, dogs and cats, corals or whales? How about Virus's? If god gave free will only to humans, then how do these other creatures function? Can a bear chose to eat a and or some honey? If any of these creature do not possess free-will, then free-will and consciousness are not related, nor are free-will and life, nor are free-will and existence. If all of them do possess free-will, then what sets humans apart from a virus, since you equate free-will with consciousness?

As to the whole moral argument, you are just going back to the old "morals must be absolute or they mean nothing" chestnut, and then basing a bunch of claims off of that faulty argument. Morals are subjective, and we can invent them based on what we feel causes most harm.
First, prove morals are absolute. Then we can talk more about the rest of your assumptions from that claim.

If we are indeed just meat robots, its still does not follow that we could not have consciousness, or that we then wouldn't exist. Serious case of Reductio ad absurdum there.

[Drich]

---

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.

It seems a common scenario in the history of religion where the complications of simplistic overstatement lead, on further reflection when internal contradictions are discovered, to ad-hoc explanations which generally do not serve to resolve the conflict.

God is omnipotent. -> Can he make a rock so big He can't lift it? -> Sure, how is a mystery.

What if God does not use the doctrine of omnipotence to describe His power? What if He used the term "Alpha and Omega/The beginning and End of all things?" This would free Him up quite a bit don't you think? Meaning He would not be defined by a man made definition or doctrine with an inherent paradoxal flaw in the middle of it. No, If for some reason God Calls Himself Alpha and Omega, it would mean that ALL Things are subject to His will.
What does that mean for your cliche'-ed paradox? It means IF God wanted to make a rock so big he could not lift it, then He could. like wise if He didn't want to make a rock that big then He wouldn't. See as the Alpha and Omega ALL Things (Even douche-che'd paradoxes) Are subject to His will, and He is not subject to some narrowly defined principle or man made 'doctrine.'

God is omniscient. -> Does He know of the extent of his knowledge of the things he doesn't know?-> Sure, how is a mystery.

Again.. Alpha and Omega. If He wills it so then your answer is Yes if not then No.
Your problem with Omni-max based paradoxes, is that it only points to the fact that the words/Omni-Doctrines themselves are flawed. Since God never refers to Himself as an Omni-max God, you argument fails.

Paradise is perfect. -> Perfect peace includes knowledge of the suffering of others. -> You will understand. It's a mystery.

Next bit-o-failed reasoning.. God does not sell 'paradise' to us in the Bible. Although the word is used to describe an attribute of His abode (not ours, in the After life.) 'We' Will Live on a 'New Earth.' Not in Heaven according to Revelation/The bible.

God is omnibenevolent -> Wherefore evil? -> You will understand.  It's a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why people choose the complex explanation: God and mystery instead of the simple one: No God and the obvious.

This is an easy one. God in the bible never claims to be ' Omni-benevolent.' If fact the opposite is true. There are those in whom God Hates. The List is a short one, but even so God Can Not Be All Loving of There is a list of those God Hates. So then it can be said:"God loves those in whom He loves and will have mercy on those in whom He will have mercy."

---

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.

So really, this argument amounts to: a person in heaven would understand gods reason for sending their loved one to hell, so they would then just accept it as right and good.  Is this about right?  This sounds like an adjusted version of the Lobotomy.

I'm shocked that you don't see what an appalling argument that is.  So love is totally conditional, and god can take it away with...understanding of why that person needs to suffer torment for all eternity.  That...is...fucking...sick. 

And hey, with understanding does not come acceptance of other's suffering.  As humans become more advanced, we generally go the other way, and find that there is little reason for another's suffering.  Many people even defend the murderers, whores, and so forth (cough ~jesus~ cough). 

The more understanding we gain, the less judgemental we become.  Funny how the Christian notion of god and heaven is that we will become MORE judgmental and accepting of others suffering.  It's like you believe 2 completely different things at the same time!

Are you saying just because someone is loved by someone else say in this case a mother or father, that person is not deserving of Hell?

Have you been lobotomized?

Do you not think ISIS extremists are all hated by their parents? Was Hitler, Stallin, and the members of the Kim dynasty all hated by their parents as well?

I do not want to spend eternity with any of those monsters, even if one of them was your kid, or anyone elses just because a parent loved them.

It's like you guys can't look past your own intrests, to a greater sense of Good or righteousness.

[Anima]

Unless your version of hell just means "not existing anymore" you're continuing a false equivocation. Yes, death is a terminal punishment. But the person doesn't suffer forever after they are given the death penalty.

Let me ask you then: would you rather cease to exist or be tortured forever? Do you have a preference?

There is another point to prison as well, which is to try and give the person time to rehabilitate. Obviously this is not always possible, but with shorter sentences the person gets "time out" and can come back stronger, should they wish to do so. Not so when you're just endlessly punishing someone without ever having the chance of redemption.

[Edited, I was being overly arrogant and pompous!]

You are going to love this line. To quote the movie The Prophecy:

"Hell is not necessarily lakes of boiling oil or chains of ice. Hell is to be removed from god's sight. To have his word taken from you."

(An atheist paradise if ever there was one!! )

In truth I cannot tell you whether hell does or does not equate to nonexistence since we do not know. However, I would not agree with the idea that a person does not suffer forever upon death under Atheistic thought. (As realist I must state that one may suffer objectively even if they are not suffering subjectively.)

In answer to your question I would rather be tortured forever than not exist. But, alas I am not so inclined to opt for nonexistence because continued existence will not be pleasing to me.

I believe I stated earlier that it is likely prison serves a primary retributivist function rather than a rehabilitative function. As we might effectuate the former by the imposition of displeasure (even suffering), but may not so effect the latter by any means not permitted by the prisoner. Since it is not our goal to make our society subject to our prisoners it thus follows that our primary intention of imprisonment is not rehabilitation, but rather retribution (where we are okay if that retribution results in rehabilitation).

[Iroscato]

In answer to your question I would rather be tortured forever than not exist.

Don't be silly now, dear.

[robvalue]

I don't understand... you think if someone ceases to exist they are still suffering? Is that what you meant?

If Hell just means being dead and not being with god, then sure, sign me up.

[Iroscato]

Why this overwhelming fear of death? Let's not kid ourselves - it is that dread of death that forms one of the pillars of religion, and it's helped it maintain its power for centuries. After this life, lies nothing - non-existence. You are not aware of anything, for you have ceased to exist. Better to live a rich life than cling desperately to the hope of an eternal afterlife.
I do not fear death, nor do I fear the possibility of Hell if I am wrong. There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince myself of its existence without strong evidence to that end, which so far has utterly failed to materialise. So I do not fear that which is either fantasy or inevitable.
What I DO fear is the human mindset that first conceived of such a notion...and the mindset that upholds and enforces its idea. It's no fun to live in fear of such a thing without the merest hint of its existence. And it most certainly is not healthy.

[Anima]

So, by your logic a rock does not exist because it does not have free-will.  That's what I'm getting from this.  Only free-will causes existence.  That's the dumbest argument for free-will I've ever heard.  But a rock isn't alive, so I guess you'll go there.

What about a jellyfish? We can agree that it is alive, I hope?  Yet it has no brain, does it posess free-will?   What is the cause of free-will, then?  Do only humans have it, not say, dogs and cats, corals or whales?  How about Virus's?  If god gave free will only to humans, then how do these other creatures function?  Can a bear chose to eat a and or some honey?  If any of these creature do not possess free-will, then free-will and consciousness are not related, nor are free-will and life, nor are free-will and existence.  If all of them do possess free-will, then what sets humans apart from a virus, since you equate free-will with consciousness?

As to the whole moral argument, you are just going back to the old "morals must be absolute or they mean nothing" chestnut, and then basing a bunch of claims off of that faulty argument.  Morals are subjective, and we can invent them based on what we feel causes most harm.
First, prove morals are absolute.  Then we can talk more about the rest of your assumptions from that claim.

If we are indeed just meat robots, its still does not follow that we could not have consciousness, or that we then wouldn't exist.  Serious case of Reductio ad absurdum there.

First, Argumentum ad novitatem is really not going to get you anywhere. Not only is it a logical fallacy, but if knowledge is predicated on other knowledge (which we know to be the case) the argument itself would state nothing known is valid as it is based on something invalid because it was rendered invalid long ago.

Second, if morals are subjective than no one acts immorally. Under a subjective definition it is impossible to say that an action is immoral or amoral. Rather the morality of the action (no matter how horrible or hurtful) is to be determine by the actor who thought it was such a good quality as to commit the act.

Third, if we are to distinquish the existence of person from that of reactive meat automatons we shall be best served in observation where conduct is not in accordance with reactive meat conduct. This is to say the person must choose to react in a manner that reactive meat would not thereby exhibiting itself as either as more than reactive meat. Now if you take away choice then we may say there is only reactive meat since the conduct exhibited shall either always be that of reactive meat or shall be that of defective reactive meat, but reactive meat nonetheless as the action was not one of choice.

Fourth, that reactive meat engages in limited activity is not indicative of freewill or consciousness. Bear eats because it is hungry than it stops eating when it is no longer hungry. Naturally this leads to the odorless, tasteless poison dish example. If bear observers other bears eat from poison dish and die; and bear is starving will bear choose not to eat from dish to avoid poison though they may starve? Or will bear act according to the stimuli and eat from the dish bear has observed to be poisonous.

Fifth, under Atheistic argument (yes I know you are not a monolith) something does not exist without "proof". Proof is to be direct explicit empirical evidence. There is no direct explicit empirical evidence of metaphysical person. Thus persons do not exist. While human meat moves around as if persons are present such movement is only circumstantial implicit empirical evidence of the existence of metaphysical person, which is not sufficient proof. Ergo, persons do not exist for lack of proof.

[Silver]

It's like you guys can't look past your own intrests, to a greater sense of Good or righteousness.

Because your psycho god perfectly represents good and righteousness.  

Darling, stop being so damn dumb.

You are the perfect example of the willfully ignorant.

Your problem is that you believe in the message, without allowing your brain to do the job it must do. You shut your brain off, telling it to ignore reality and rationality.  When you do that, you are ignoring the fundamentals of being human.  Rather, you would make yourself inhuman.  

Religion does not celebrate who we are. Rather, religion does all it can to suppress who we are. That is not living.

That is death by religion.

[robvalue]

That is the sad truth. Religion often does all it can to persuade people that the only life we are certain of is actually insignificant. The fact that most people aren't so eager to die betrays their lack of confidence in this sentiment, most of the time.

Sadly though, sometimes they are eager, or make an "informed" choice to die so they can "go to heaven". How depressing is that?

[Prince]

I have always wondered If God is real. Did he created Hell first, then Heaven or the other way around. If I were a God, i would at least have compassion for my creation by not making them suffer even after they die on Earth. I am still confused, which came first: "Heaven, Hell then Earth", or "Heaven, Earth then Hell", or "Hell, Heaven then Earth". Why is it so important for God to torture his creation, for what purpose he will be benefiting from.

Religious people often say concerning the purpose of life, that God gave us life and out of respect of his kindness we must return the favor by praying & praising Him everyday, thus our reward would be to enter his kingdom of heaven. This is the fundamentals of all religions. The question here why does God need praising in the first place? Does he need the prayers of all 7 billions lives in this world, although in case of one person doesn't pray He will receive the ultimate punishment!

God doesn't give a damn fuck about his creation, He drowned an entire civilization... He massacred millions of lives, destroyed villages, towns and more... He urged believers to fight against each others while calling out his name. It seems that God has created us for the purpose of toying with us so we could sacrifice ourselves for his sake.