If God exists then hell cannot logically exist.

Shinji Ikari

I posted this argument on Dawkins net over a year ago. I just wanted to see what ye make of it.

1:Assume for a moment that God exists and is infinitely compassionate and omnipotent.
2:I am not infinitely compassionate yet I would save my child from hell if I was omnipotent.
3:God is more compassionate than me and is omnipotent.
4:Therefore if an infinitely compassionate and omnipotent God exists Hell cannot logically exist.

Pompey Magnus

Maybe God isn't infinitely compassionate. He has shown no reluctance to slaughter his creations if they displease him so I wouldn't regard Hell as being impossible for this particular diety.

If a god was infinitely compassionate then you would be correct, I just don't think that Yahweh is.

Shinji Ikari

If we define God by its characteristics in the old testament then..well it is like a super villian. But I prefer to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt and define God by the new testament.I would think most theologians would attribute omnipotence, omniscience and infinite compassion to the God of the new testament.

robindch

It's a mild variation on Epicurus' 'riddle'.

Point (4) is arguably better expressed "Hell is inconsistent with the existence of an infinitely compassionate and omnipotent deity"; ie, if god is consistent, then he shouldn't let hell happen. However, most religious believe that he is both consistent and happy that hell exists (with a few religious believing that he need not be consistent). And there isn't really any response to that other than to change topic.

ChocolateSauce

Pretty much. I take this as the ultimate proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

Zombrex

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

I posted this argument on Dawkins net over a year ago. I just wanted to see what ye make of it.

1:Assume for a moment that God exists and is infinitely compassionate and omnipotent.
2:I am not infinitely compassionate yet I would save my child from hell if I was omnipotent.
3:God is more compassionate than me and is omnipotent.
4:Therefore if an infinitely compassionate and omnipotent God exists Hell cannot logically exist.

Christians get around that problem by saying that Hell is in keeping with a standard of justice. God doesn't want to send you to hell, he does because he holds to his standard of perfect justice. Infinite insult requires infinite punishment.

And yes, that doesn't make sense either :pac:

"Hell" is a concept that probably made more sense back in ancient time when people tended to see "justice" in a more barbaric violent way.

Hivemind187

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

If we define God by its characteristics in the old testament then..well it is like a super villian. But I prefer to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt and define God by the new testament.I would think most theologians would attribute omnipotence, omniscience and infinite compassion to the God of the new testament.

Bah! cherry picking of the highest order.

If we are to take it that the accounts given of him are accurate (otherwise Christians, Jews and Muslims have a lot of difficult explanations to give) then exactly how did the flip come about?

Old Testament God/Him/Yahweh/Agla/Tetragrammaton/Noodles = Petty, cruel, vengeful, angry, genocidal, infanticidal, mutilating, torturing, cursing, corrupting rapist by proxy with a penchant for mass drownings and arson.

Old Testament God (etc) = Laid back hippy type with a absurd "couldnt care less" attitude towards the affairs of his so-called creation. A bit of a dead beat dad one might say. Oh - and a bad habit of glossing over his record like a former convict trying to get a job in a local school.

Not getting at you personally, I just find the "I prefer the New God" to be a bit of a "New Coke" fallacy. Same God, different formula? Rubbish!

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

"Hell" is a concept that probably made more sense back in ancient time when people tended to see "justice" in a more barbaric violent way.

Or in Texas.

Hivemind187

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Pretty much. I take this as the ultimate proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

As opposed to which version of the great bearded one? Islamic? Hebrew?

As far as I recall the Hebrews dont actually believe in hell (or, indeed, and afterlife in the sense most Christians understand it) and I'm a little unsure of the precise nature of the Islamic belief on the matter (which is fine because so are they by all accounts). What doesnt change is that "God" regardless of which team you support is inherently inconsistent and it is only through the power of effective PR that he managest o keep any kind of control.

For example; claims are made on his behalf that he is all knowing. Yet similar claims are made that a snake revealed the knowledge of ones self to Adam and Eve thus condemning them to suffering. If God was all knowing he should have seen this coming and the fact he did nothing about it makes him duly responsible (guilt by inaction. A crime that instead of taking responsibility for he punishes the very people he was supposed to "love more than all other animals" or some such twaddle.

Or how about the line about god being infinitely compassionate, yet his compassion doesnt extend to the Sodomites and he incinerates them or to Lots wife whom he turns into a pile of seasoning. So much for forgiveness.

There is a lot of inherent inconsistency from something that is supposed to be the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being.

Dwn Wth Vwls

I've seen Hell described more as a state of mind as opposed to a place. God welcomes you with open arms and forgiveness etc, but if you reject that and turn away from him, Hell is self inflicted. Who knows?

Hivemind187

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

I've seen Hell described more as a state of mind as opposed to a place. God welcomes you with open arms and forgiveness etc, but if you reject that and turn away from him, Hell is self inflicted. Who knows?

Brian Lumley explored this concept in "Necroscope". What he surmised was (to paraphrase)

A person who enjoys torturing and killing more than anything else in the world will spend eternity considering and devising more and more brutal methods of dispatch. Heaven.

A person who enjoys designing and building cities will spend eternity designing the most incredible buildings and the most breathtaking cities. Heaven.

A person who feels little else but guilt for a crime will spend eternity torturing him or herself about its comission without any release. Hell.

In all of these scenarios it relies on an individuals own sense of guilt (as well as the ability to continue in some form after the death of the phsyical body) but does not require the existance of a god either for the self abuse or for the continued existance.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Or in Texas.

True. There are still people who seem to quite like the idea of people going to hell (they tend to believe that isn't going to happen to them).

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

True. There are still people who seem to quite like the idea of people going to hell (they tend to believe that isn't going to happen to them).

Hardly a Christian or even reasonable perspective is it?

Personally, when I hear the likes of "left behind" wherein 3/4 of the population will be killed or "left behind" - I play the odds and continue in my hedonism.;)

Asiaprod

Interesting Topic. I have always wondered about this concept of hell and how a seemingly compassionate God could inflict hell as a punishment on something he is supposed to love so much. This and other inconsistencies, plus the fact that like most in Ireland I was raised a Catholic, led me to what I will call my own personal passion, the study of christianity through the gnostic texts. In far to many cases, the Agnostic texts contradict the current Christian cannons, or put a different spin on thing. Purely by coincidence, today I was perusing my passion and doing some online research into the Dead Sea Scrolls when I came across a text that certainly appears to present the Christian God and the concept of Hell in a different light. According to the texts, Hell is not a place where one stays permanently. Charco, who has impressed me greatly in the Christianity forum with his knowledge of ancient texts, may be able to shed some additional light on this. As I am sure PDN will also be able to answer from the Christian perspective.

The following extract is taken from "The Early Christian Writings sight (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/). It refers to the The Apocalypse of Peter, one of the Gnostic Text that did not make it into the cannons. I can understand why since the text appears to declair that even those in hell will also be spared on the last day and will also partake of heaven.

(Background of the dialogue, Peter is talking to Jesus who has just declaired that the Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son.' The destiny of sinners -their eternal doom- is more than Peter can endure: he appeals to Christ to have pity on them.

And my Lord answered me and said to me: 'Hast thou understood that which I said unto thee before? It is permitted unto thee to know that concerning which thou askest: but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin.' Peter weeps many hours, and is at last consoled by an answer which, though exceedingly diffuse and vague does seem to promise ultimate pardon for all: 'My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away,' . . . 'It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men.' Ultimately Peter orders Clement to hide this revelation in a box, that foolish men may not see it.

The doctrine that sinners will be saved at last by the prayers of the righteous is, rather obscurely, enunciated in the Second Book of the Sibylline Oracles (a paraphrase, in this part, of the Apocalypse), and in the (Coptic) Apocalypse of Elias.

The following passage in the Second Book of the Sibylline Oracles which seems to point to the ultimate salvation of all sinners is as follows:

And unto them, the godly, shall the almighty and immortal God grant another boon, when they shall ask it of him. He shall grant them to save men out of the fierce fire and the eternal gnashing of teeth: and this will he do, for he will gather them again out of the everlasting flame and remove them else whither, sending them for the sake of his people unto another life eternal and immortal, in the Elysian plain where are the long waves of the Acherusian lake exhaustless and deep bosomed.

The passage in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elias is guarded and obscure in expression, but significant. It begins with a sentence which has a parallel in Peter.

The righteous will behold the sinners in their punishment, and those who have persecuted them and delivered them up. Then will the sinners on their part behold the place of the righteous and be partakers of grace. In that day will that for which the (righteous) shall often pray*, be granted to them.

*This is taken to mean the salvation of sinners will be granted at the prayer of the righteous.
source: M.R. James translation

Zillah

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Old Testament God/Him/Yahweh/Agla/Tetragrammaton/Noodles = Petty, cruel, vengeful, angry, genocidal, infanticidal, mutilating, torturing, cursing, corrupting rapist by proxy with a penchant for mass drownings and arson.

Old Testament God (etc) = Laid back hippy type with a absurd "couldnt care less" attitude towards the affairs of his so-called creation. A bit of a dead beat dad one might say. Oh - and a bad habit of glossing over his record like a former convict trying to get a job in a local school.

*slow applause*

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Hardly a Christian or even reasonable perspective is it?

Well it certainly isn't a reasonable perspective.

Christians have had a good run of PR of convincing the rest of us that they "being Christian" means being kind and compassionate etc. But if you actually look at the religion it is actually about being kind and compassionate in a certain way. God can still do what he likes. The idea of hell is certainly in keeping with what Christianity really teaches.

Hivemind187

Zillah wrote: »

*slow applause*

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something but ... your point is?

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it certainly isn't a reasonable perspective.

Christians have had a good run of PR of convincing the rest of us that they "being Christian" means being kind and compassionate etc. But if you actually look at the religion it is actually about being kind and compassionate in a certain way. God can still do what he likes. The idea of hell is certainly in keeping with what Christianity really teaches.

Agreed. It seems that the "certain way" is "whatever way is popular with us at this moment in history".

So this implies that it is a double standard, that god is only compassionate to those who follow the dogma attributed to him - every one else gets to burn.

So much for "infinitely compassionate".

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it certainly isn't a reasonable perspective.

Christians have had a good run of PR of convincing the rest of us that they "being Christian" means being kind and compassionate etc. But if you actually look at the religion it is actually about being kind and compassionate in a certain way. God can still do what he likes. The idea of hell is certainly in keeping with what Christianity really teaches.

It also seems, in a lot of case, to influence their opinion on crime and punishment. A lot of them seem keen on capital punishment, even if it involves kids and wild bears.... It seems to give a strange outlook on life let alone the afterlife.

MrP

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

if you actually look at the religion it is actually about being kind and compassionate in a certain way.

...since most religions are "about" propagating the religion. They only encourage sufficient kindness and compassion to ensure they can continue to exist.

If, for example, christianity was "about" love, then their emblem would be something less unpleasant than an instrument of torture with a corpse nailed to it -- what better way to motivate mortals than by waving a corpse? Yuk.

Hivemind187

robindch wrote: »

If, for example, christianity was "about" love, then their emblem would be something less unpleasant than an instrument of torture with a corpse nailed to it -- what better way to motivate mortals than by waving a corpse? Yuk.

I assume you are willing to be quoted on that

/gets price on t-shirt printing.

Shinji Ikari

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Bah! cherry picking of the highest order.

If we are to take it that the accounts given of him are accurate (otherwise Christians, Jews and Muslims have a lot of difficult explanations to give) then exactly how did the flip come about?

Old Testament God/Him/Yahweh/Agla/Tetragrammaton/Noodles = Petty, cruel, vengeful, angry, genocidal, infanticidal, mutilating, torturing, cursing, corrupting rapist by proxy with a penchant for mass drownings and arson.

Old Testament God (etc) = Laid back hippy type with a absurd "couldnt care less" attitude towards the affairs of his so-called creation. A bit of a dead beat dad one might say. Oh - and a bad habit of glossing over his record like a former convict trying to get a job in a local school.

Not getting at you personally, I just find the "I prefer the New God" to be a bit of a "New Coke" fallacy. Same God, different formula? Rubbish!

Well, yeah. I mean this inconsitancy is what ignited my disbelief as a child. I would glance through the bible and think.." How can Jesus be so nice and God be such a bastard when their the same person. Does God have a split personality?"

Having said that, I think if you can defeat the strongest version of your opponents argument then they have nothing to fall back on. Attacking the God of the old testament allows for them to respond with ammunition from the new testament ect. However some Christian sects argue their is no Hell. The Jehova witnesses believe in Ghienna(sic?). Eternal death, which is what the Jews believe in.

anti-venom

To think that this crazy idea of hell most likely came from Jereuselem's municipal dump called Gehenna. This place was constantly ablaze to prevent the rubbish from building up too high. The bodies of criminals and dead vagrants were usually tossed on the fires and even worse, it was a place of sacrifice where children were offered back to God. Priests would apparently bang loudly on drums to drown out the screams of the children as they burned. From this place and the horrible practises commited there comes the genesis of the idea of hell.

A wonderful book entitled The Birth of Satan offers a very insightful look at the concept of hell and how the idea was developed and refined through the centuries. It's well worth tracking down.

ChocolateSauce

Hivemind187 wrote: »

As opposed to which version of the great bearded one? Islamic? Hebrew?

Not as opposed to any of them. I merely mention the Christian one because I live in a christian country and it is by far christians who go on about the love the most.

stevejazzx

Hivemind187 wrote: »

.....with a penchant for mass drownings and arson....
&...over his record like a former convict trying to get a job in a local school.

Ahhh...I had myself a grand chuckle there so I did....

kelly1

For anyone who's interested, here's an article on eternal punishment

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

For anyone who's interested, here's an article on eternal punishment

Wow, that sounds really bad. I am glad it is just made up.

MrP

Zillah

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something but ... your point is?

Sorry, I never explained that. You said old testament God twice, whereas I got the impression the second should have been new testament.

robindch

anti-venom wrote: »

To think that this crazy idea of hell most likely came from Jereuselem's municipal dump called Gehenna.

The idea of hell was around for a long time before christianity acquired it and pretended it had invented it.

The idea of an underworld populated with the souls of the dead was common in Greek mythology and the ancient Greek text of the NT refers to hell using the same word -- Hades. Meanwhile, the idea of a general and possibly eternal punishment for bad deeds, and reward for good was well known from Plato's Myth of Er. The notion of the judgment of the dead is also present in earlier Zoroastrian religious culture in its Chivnat Bridge (which itself showed up later in islam).

Standman

Heaven and hell explained:

anti-venom

robindch wrote: »

The idea of hell was around for a long time before christianity acquired it and pretended it had invented it.

The idea of an underworld populated with the souls of the dead was common in Greek mythology and the ancient Greek text of the NT refers to hell using the same word -- Hades. Meanwhile, the idea of a general and possibly eternal punishment for bad deeds, and reward for good was well known from Plato's Myth of Er. The notion of the judgment of the dead is also present in earlier Zoroastrian religious culture in its Chivnat Bridge (which itself showed up later in islam).

You're quite right; the concept of hell does indeed predate christianity. I should have made it clearer that what I was referring to was the Christian image of hell in particular; the bottomless pit of fire with the uber villain overseeing the torturing of souls for eternity. The book I mentioned traces his development from the old to the new testament and how he morphed in character as the theology of theodicy developed in tandem with monotheism.
From a benign angel to the embodiment of evil; Satan was and is the ultimate scapegoat with which the faithful have divested God of any responsibility for the ills of this world.