The Problem of Hell and a Loving God
 

YT

I think people sometimes accept poor theological "arguments" because they have a tendency to be abstract. CDK007 fixes that problem for this particular bit o' apologist rhetoric.

finally... a bit of evidence that will get people to give up their beliefs and love one another unconditionally...........

The area of evidence is one that theists care little for.

Would those who would otherwise go to hell love god back? Would it be right for those who do love god to suffer from those who don not?

To use a similar idea, I think we have a duty of care in the world. You go to most places in the world and there are lawd and punishments to ensure that duty of care. Some places have death as a punishment. Should we then remove these laws and punishments because they are not loving?

And the Damned Fool Anti-Theistic Crusade™ begins anew.

OCD is such an ugly thing. :p

How unfortunate that we seem to be confused as to the difference between "evidence" and "argumentation" (or in this case maybe "counter-").

Or perhaps you opted to comment without first making some effort to find out what you were commenting on?

I think this kinda misses the point.

If god loves us all, then how can hell exist? Either hell isn't real, god isn't real, or god doesn't love us all. Which of these options 1) makes the most sense (and is consistent with the evidence) or 2) are we the most comfortable with?

Your participation, as always, is completely voluntary.

In light of my comment above, it certainly would seem to be the case, wouldn't it?

no to both of those. actually i was thinking maybe you could make a thread about everyone on youtube who makes a few videos about god then maybe if you make enough of them religion will die or whatever

I'll work on that.

Maybe you could start a thread on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and post some articles and then maybe if you post enough of them both sides will decide to stop fighting or something.

Or maybe social consciousness is only cool when you do it. I don't know.

ah yes i forgot some random youtuber making a video is newsworthy

"renowned scholar cdk007 has published a video today, from the looks of the video it is entitled 'unregistered powervideomaker', although this has yet to be confirmed."

-the ap

I certainly think the content of the video is worth discussion. If you don't then you're free to not participate.

So would you like to discuss the content or would you like to continue whatever problem it is you have with me and/or post more strawmen about video authors (rather than the videos themselves).

P.S. the Senate is a serious discussion forum. "Serious discussion" is not limited to "newsworthy". I hope that helps.

i will discuss the video then. it is 3 minutes of drivel during which professor cdk007 ignores the fact that he is talking about how unless god loves us all as much as we love the most important person in our lives this somehow disproves the fact that there is a god. think about that for a second, how much any of us love 1 person is his standard and god has to meet that standard for billions of us? you can't be serious, and i hope you reconsider calling yourself logical if you truely believe this is at all rational

"Father" is a term ofter used in relation to god. A father who disciplines his children would still love them. While the concept of hell might seem severe, would it be any better were those who did not love god allowed to make those who do love god suffer?

Great.

Actually, it's a condensed, real-world take on one aspect of the problem of evil. Perhaps you're not familiar with that theological argument, hence why you're unable to recognize the context.

It does not "somehow disprove the fact that there is a god".

It does demonstrate that the problem of evil is a valid theological argument and that apologetics are insufficient to address it.

I've thought about it for a lot of seconds. I'd ask you to think about your own argument for a second:

Either our standards are based on gods or they are not. If they are and god is not able to meet his own standard, then there is a problem. If they are not then how do we get our standards? Are our standards higher or lower than god's. Either way you go, this is also a problem for god.

So, I do agree with you that one of us does need to spend some time thinking about it.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument would indeed give me cause for further reflection. At this point, I think I'm still okay.

This is precisely the point raised in the video.

Assume for a second that your assumption is correct and discipline ala "tough love" is the best standard for raising "children". Are you saying that a spanking for breaking a vase and spending an eternity is a lake of fire for not loving your parents "enough" is the same thing? If yes, then there's your answer, thanks for playing, and we're all done here. If no, then we have to ask ourselves why our standards would appear to be more merciful and more loving than god's. Which is a huge problem because "he" is supposed to be ALL-loving and we're supposed to be fallible.

Even if "tough love" is the answer, god's version of it seems extreme to at least some of us and runs counter to any presupposition that god is omnibenevolent. Can't have it both ways here.

you just responded to that post, so get reflecting

And you just responded to the post where I countered your post. You're certainly welcome not to acknowledge that your points have been countered, but really won't mean very much here.

You could opt to address my counter-arguments (either to point out where my logic is flawed, or perhaps learn something), but it's certainly not mandatory.

I conducted a little bit of research and came across this.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6114620AAn1ETq

It may not be the answer you are looking for but it attempts to explain why there is a hell if god loves us.

Yahoo answers?

Oh brother.

You would prefer Richard Dawkins answer the question perhaps?

I thought "Best Answer - Chosen by Asker" was the best part :)

@lockhead: this doesn't introduce anything new. A great deal of that response is completely unrelated to the question. What little that is there doesn't address the video from the OP. All it does is repeat the argument that video counters. In other words, it's not progress. All it does is repeat step 1.

I think appealing to authority (regardless of whose "authority" you appeal to) doesn't help either. We should be looking the argument that makes the most sense. Not which answer comes from the person we like the most.

I believe it prudant to ask, what type of answers are you looking for?

"Serious ones" would probably be the most succinct.

Something that is supported by evidence or is at least both logically sound and consistent would be absolutely fabulous.

I recommend using the link I provided in post 14 as a jumping off point for further research.

This episode of the reasonable doubts podcast might also have some food for thought as well.

And if you want to invest a little more time into the matter, you could also try this book by Bart Ehrman (interview here)

I want to reflect back what I think you're saying. You're saying that god cannot exist because of the concept of hell?

To try and answer the question of why there is a need for hell, say you were running this forum. One day someone comes in and starts acting obnoxious. They argue, they fight, and they threaten the forum staff when they intercede. What do you do?

No. I'll once more repeat what I am saying:

Either hell isn't real, god isn't real, or god doesn't love us all.

There is as much (or as little) room for the middle option as you care for, but one of those things has to be true.

Obviously, if you opt for the middle option, then the third is void as well and the first one kinda loses any significance.

The analogy is not even worth my time. You're welcome to try again though.

I am afraid that you seem to have taken the position that it has to be one of those three, to the point of ignoring anything that suggests otherwise. Reading your posts I believe this is to try and prove there is no god, and that is the only answer that you are interested in. If that is the case then the only answer that would be accepted would be that god does not exist.

Such as what?

If there are other options that you feel I am missing, please feel free to point out what they are.

I'm interested first and foremost in the truth. Since there is neither evidence to support the case for god nor logical arguments to provide even the most basic foundation of such a proposition, I don't see how it would be very consistent for me to claim to be interested in the truth and accept such a claim simultaneously.

Rather than attempt to address any of the points I've raised in previous posts, it appears that you've moved on to personal attacks. An unfortunate, but common, tactic used by creationists.

Since I stated precisely the opposite not once, but twice (most recently in the post you just replied to), I don't see how you could come to this conclusion.

What is the case is that if christians want to be consistent in their case for god, at least one part of their story needs to change. From my vantage point, it would seem that "god is not onmi-benevolent" would be the least painful of the three. Without hell, there's no need for jesus. And accepting that there is no god is no longer theism.

To which, I try and answer your questions, however you are not interested in that particular answer. I try and explain why there can be a god and a hell yet you do not wish to listen. And you draw the conclusion that I am a creationist making personal attacks. If you refuse to listen to what is put forward then there is nothing anyone on the forum can do to help you.

The Yahoo! Answers link you posted. I'm not interested in that answer because it's garbage.

Which post?

I'm assuming that you're a creationist. The personal attacks isn't a matter of opinion - it's a matter of fact.

Which implies that I want or need "help".

I put forth something for discussion. You're not doing much in the way of "discussing" here.

Or both Evil and Hell are necessary for some reason.

I put forward a simple test, the one about dealing with someone who was a problem on the forums. You chose to ignore it which suggests you are not interested in listening to anything that does not fit within any conclusion you may have already made. To ignore attempts to answer your questions and dismiss them as rubbish further implies that point. And I could get involved in an epic flame war over the topic of religion against someone who going by their history here has years of experience making anyone who disagrees with them look like fools.

No thanks, I have a life.

Yes, that's Achilles' MO, alright. To know him is to love him. :D
Hm, you seem to know a lot more about the situation than someone who has all of, what, 15 posts really should. You wouldn't happen to be someone's alt, would you? That's a no-no around here. :tsk: :p

As Totenkopf pointed out it would only require a quick read through of someone's post history to suss out their general habits and style. And I figured I have much better things to do than to get hung up in a debate that no one wins.

I was sort of kidding, you know. ;)

Anywho, if you've read back far enough, you'll know that Achilles does this from time to time in order to hook some naive and unfortunate believer so that he can reel them in, trap them and grind them into dust with his logic, which makes absolutely no sense, given that this is a subject with an illogical answer.

Now, I'll leave to your imagination what exactly this accomplishes. He seems to get off on it, though, so that's probably it.

I kind of figured you were, but on a serious topic, I'm of the belief that anyone who says god cannot exist if there is hell, for example, well that's just their opinion. I really cannot be bothered to get a fly up my nose about it. I also think anyone who looks to go on a crusade will only destroy themselves...what a waste of logic for someone to do that to themselves.

Such as?

"Necessary" in what way? You mean to argue that an all-powerful god is simply "playing by the rules"? Whose rules would those be?

The analogy was poor then and it's poor now. You were invited to provide a better one and opted not to. That certainly isn't my problem.

I certainly cannot take credit for the indefensible positions of others.

Speaking of...

"naive and unfortunate believer". A lot of people post here. None of them seem either able or willing to provide solid argumentation for their positions. By your own description, are they all "naive and unfortunate believers"?

And hopefully you saw this coming:

"a subject with an illogical answer". If you're conceding that there is no logical argument for god, then why are you here? Spam?

That's a no-no too isn't it?

Perhaps nothing. Or perhaps from time to time I say or present something that causes someone to 2nd guess a position they've always held but never questioned. Maybe that person eventually gives up their crutch and the world becomes a better place for it. Or maybe my efforts are nothing more than a means for you to increase your post count. I suppose we may never know for sure.

Regardless, at least I can tell myself that I do something potentially constructive with my time here. Much the same way I imagine you get a feeling of accomplishment in the tech forums.

You're welcome to point out where anyone (other than you) suggested this. I can point out twice where I've clearly not.

Ok, so you'll be on your way now? Toodles.

You like Chef Aid don't you? You're a big fan of it?

My guess is that he feels that God should be a doormat b/c that's his concept of perfect love. It still mazes me, if only slightly, that he even cares what theists think about the existence of God, nevermind the ramifications in an "imaginary realm". :rolleyes:

Given that how theists thinks about God/hell tend to affect others to some extent, I don't see it as strange at all. In adition, if someone holds a possision you see as ilogical, you'd probably point it out yourself. Add that he sees religious belief as harmfull to society, and he has just as much motivation to point out what he sees as flaws with their belief as a believer in hell has to convert others.
Note: I'm only equating your motivation with that of a theist, Achilles, not the source of it.

Christians vote don't they?

I think Congressman John Shimkus proved Atheists concerns over the “imaginary realm” valid.

I didn't say that any one group has no vested interest in another's beliefs, just that some parts of one person's belief system are more esoteric than other parts and don't really matter. I seriously doubt achilles wastes any time really worrying about whether God "loves" his subjects, as the ramifications of that speculation really only involve a realm he's consigned to fiction. When it comes to politics, sussing out the whys of someone's belief system pale in comparison to the whats. Just ask anyone in a rigid theocracy.

re Shimkus: are you referring to his beliefs about "global warming"? Had to look it up as I'm not familiar w/this congressman.