Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[ivebeenshown]

Saying we’re susceptible to a certain set of ethics, but God isn’t, because He’s God - is special pleading. The only reason given that God isn’t, is because He’s God. Special pleading on behalf of God.

Sarah x

God is not bound to a different moral principle than ourselves.

All rational beings (God, angels, humans) are bound to the same moral principle, however, the goodness or malice of an act is in proportion to circumstances – for instance, the act of taking something that rightfully belongs to another does not carry an absolute degree of evil: the man who steals from the jewelry store is surely more evil than the infant who, possessing no concept of ownership, removes the pacifier from another infant to enjoy for himself.

Further, God is bound to that moral principle in the sense that he is that moral principle, and we are bound to that moral principle by means of our participation.

 

[Viewscreen]

Frankly I believe pinning “hell” (really, you still believe in hell, in this place and age, really?) and all our woes on “free will” intellectually doesn’t explain anything, theologically speaking or otherwise. I don’t believe for a moment that free will has anything to do with love. If anything, bringing it up is a form of tanking and a kind of excuse - out of left field you might say: "BUT don’t you value your “free will?” Personally, “no, I don’t. Why should I?” Of course, if you put it in stark terms and say “love me or I’ll put a bullet in your head” than thats just psychologically sick and I don’t need to “choose” anything to want to get out of that situation. But if you keep insinuating it in other contexts, than it makes even less sense.

We love, most of the time, because we cannot help but do so. I don’t **know **if free will doesn’t exist, but I like to **believe **it doesn’t. Probably because it does more harm than good. And, thankfully, science is now showing positively that there is no good grounds for it at all.

Good riddance. Along with the psychotic doctrine of “hell.”

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Sorry, I am simply not interested in talking to someone who employs the fallacy of special pleading.

Its not special pleading, its Virtue Ethics (Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics). If you think its special pleading my guess is that you’re probably a Kantian. Of course, even then, Kant’s moral arguments state that his universal maxims are morally binding because it shows that it is inherent to our essence. God is God, man is man. If my argument is special pleading please tell my why God is obligated to the same measure of action as we are? A good watch tells time accurately, a bad watch does not. If I create a watch, I am not obligated to keep time. To hold that I must tell time is an equivocation of what I and the watch ought to do. Unless you give me a reason that God ought not to sustain evil acts, understanding the consequences of that, my argument still stands. Explain why the consequences of only sustaining good are better off then how things are currently. All of the consequences, not just consequences like “it will end suffering.”

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Frankly I believe pinning “hell” (really, you still believe in hell, in this place and age, really?) and all our woes on “free will” intellectually doesn’t explain anything, theologically speaking or otherwise. I don’t believe for a moment that free will has anything to do with love. If anything, bringing it up is a form of tanking and a kind of excuse - out of left field you might say: "BUT don’t you value your “free will?” Personally, “no, I don’t. Why should I?” Of course, if you put it in stark terms and say “love me or I’ll put a bullet in your head” than thats just psychologically sick and I don’t need to “choose” anything to want to get out of that situation. But if you keep insinuating it in other contexts, than it makes even less sense.

We love, most of the time, because we cannot help but do so. I don’t **know **if free will doesn’t exist, but I like to **believe **it doesn’t. Probably because it does more harm than good. And, thankfully, science is now showing positively that there is no good grounds for it at all.

Good riddance. Along with the psychotic doctrine of “hell.”

Interesting. Just some thoughts. Free will actually explains a lot theologically from the problem of evil, to the nature of salvation, our moral responsibility (no one can be held responsible for things they had no choice in doing), as well as the nature of our relationship with God and each other.

You always choose love. You can fall in love and feel all kinds of infatuation, but you can choose not to love them. The former is more a matter of hormones and instincts, but the action is what can be chosen, not the predisposition. Did you choose to leave a comment on CAF? Could you have chosen otherwise? If so, that is free will.

You say you do not value your free will, but the only reason you are able to not value free will is that you have the free will to not value it. It’s ridiculous for a person to say “I choose not to choose,” the fact they do not want to choose does not forfeit their inherent ability to choose.

Putting a gun to someone’s head does not forfeit your free will and the limits of the analogy are obvious. Free will means you could not choose anything. But if you do not have choice, you can have no alternative, but love and moral agency only make sense if you could have done otherwise. This is why plants are not moral agents nor can they love you.

Free will doing more harm than good is a matter of perspective and is heavily debated. As far as science 1) it is beyond the scope of science to come to conclusions such as “there is no free will.” If there is no free will, then they had no choice but to be scientists and discover that there is no free will. That notion doesn’t seem silly to you? 2) despite free will not being a scientific question, the many scientist who do debate free will… well, they debate free will. There are many scientist who are not determinists. Tichio Kaku is an example of a prominent scientist (theoretical physicist) who rejects determinism.

Real quick, if there is an afterlife, why wouldn’t there be some sort of “hell?” You think Hitler deserves heaven? Stalin? The people who rape and sexually expose infants? Now, of course, no one deserves heaven and we get in by grace and by the skin of our teeth. My point remains. Do you think everyone who has ever lived deserves heaven? Is it that you are universalist? Do you just not believe in an afterlife at all? Or perhaps you lean towards annihilationism as I do.

 

[mgoforth]

Frankly I believe pinning “hell” (really, you still believe in hell, in this place and age, really?) and all our woes on “free will” intellectually doesn’t explain anything, theologically speaking or otherwise. I don’t believe for a moment that free will has anything to do with love. If anything, bringing it up is a form of tanking and a kind of excuse - out of left field you might say: "BUT don’t you value your “free will?” Personally, “no, I don’t. Why should I?” Of course, if you put it in stark terms and say “love me or I’ll put a bullet in your head” than thats just psychologically sick and I don’t need to “choose” anything to want to get out of that situation. But if you keep insinuating it in other contexts, than it makes even less sense.

We love, most of the time, because we cannot help but do so. I don’t **know **if free will doesn’t exist, but I like to **believe **it doesn’t. Probably because it does more harm than good. And, thankfully, science is now showing positively that there is no good grounds for it at all.

Good riddance. Along with the psychotic doctrine of “hell.”

I’m sorry you don’t enjoy having free will.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Saying we’re susceptible to a certain set of ethics, but God isn’t, because He’s God - is special pleading. The only reason given that God isn’t, is because He’s God. Special pleading on behalf of God.

Sarah x

Sarah, let me explain. In the study of ethics there are different theories and arguments like in any discipline. If Kantianism is true than PERHAPS my argument is special pleading. However, ethics deals with the essence of a thing. What do we mean I ought to do something? Why do I have an ought? Why should I do what I ought to do? My position is not special pleading, I think there is just some confusion on the nature and history of moral theory. Aristotle’s ethics, G. E. M. Anscombe, Thomas Aquinas, and Alasdari MacIntyre have interesting works in this field in support of Virtue Ethics. If you think my argument is special pleading it is because, no offense, you have misunderstood what it means to be moral or ethical or good.

Ethics is more about character than it is a specific action. As far as moral action goes, as I said before, we cannot have a theory of ethics without a proper metaphysics. To equate our metaphysical position and God’s metaphysical position would be erroneous because God has a very different metaphysics being the kind of “thing” that He is. That is not to say that God is does not have an ethical code, for He must have the most ethical character of all. But if God takes my life right now, why is that wrong? If God does not interfere with an evil action in order to preserve free will and moral agency, why is that wrong? If I interfere with an action I do not cease free will or moral agency. Our actions are different, our essence is different, and our oughts are different. I have given reasons why moral action for God is different than moral action for man, special pleading would be “because He’s God” and leaving it at that. I believe I have given sufficiently good reasons for why God has different oughts than we do.

 

[Viewscreen]

I’m sorry you don’t enjoy having free will.

To me it is entirely a moot point. What difference does it make that I have or have not free will, given how I act?

That said, I prefer to think we don’t have free will because this allows us to lead more authentic lives and not second-guess ourselves. Furthermore, it would for (not me) but for a lot of people relieve the stresses of guilt, regret and bitterness. Instead it would replace these with innocence, happiness and forgiveness, respectively.

 

[mgoforth]

To me it is entirely a moot point. What difference does it make that I have or have not free will, given how I act?

That said, I prefer to think we don’t have free will because this allows us to lead more authentic lives and not second-guess ourselves. Furthermore, it would for (not me) but for a lot of people relieve the stresses of guilt, regret and bitterness. Instead it would replace these with innocence, happiness and forgiveness, respectively.

Wow, reminds me of the philosophy of the Church of Satan. Just to show you where this type of thinking leads, here are some exerpts via Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:

According to Peter H. Gilmore (high priest of the Church of Satan), “Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, ‘It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!’”

The Nine Satanic Statements outline what “Satan” represents in the Church of Satan:

1. 
   *]Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
   *]Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
   *]Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
   *]Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.
   *]Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
   *]Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
   *]Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development”, has become the most vicious animal of all.
   *]Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
   *]Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years.
   
   The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
   
   1. 
      *]Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
      *]Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
      *]When in another’s lair, show them respect or else do not go there.
      *]If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
      *]Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
      *]Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
      *]Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
      *]Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
      *]Do not harm little children.
      *]Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
      *]When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they don’t stop, destroy them.

1. 1. 
      Yikes…have fun with that.

 

[Viewscreen]

Wow, reminds me of the philosophy of the Church of Satan. Just to show you where this type of thinking leads, here are some exerpts via Wikipedia:

Yikes…have fun with that.

Seems pretty far afield. Amazing you gleaned all of that from my one post.

Come to think of it though, a lot of these rules ARE pretty great! Especially the one that reads “do not harm little children.” The Church can take a page from that. Particularly in its teachings about hell.

 

[mgoforth]

Seems pretty far afield. Amazing you gleaned all of that from my one post.

Come to think of it though, a lot of these rules ARE pretty great! Especially the one that reads “do not harm little children.” The Church can take a page from that. Particularly in its teachings about hell.

That’s a good reminder, thanks. I’m going to say a prayer for all those priests or other representatives of the Church who have harmed children, that God will lead them to repentence and forgiveness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Frankly I believe pinning “hell” (really, you still believe in hell, in this place and age, really?) …

If chronological and parochial snobbery, absent any further insight, is all you can muster, then all we can do is respond with a polite smile and “Thank you!” for your unhelpful contribution to the topic.

…and all our woes on “free will” intellectually doesn’t explain anything, theologically speaking or otherwise.

On the contrary, if your very identity and autonomy as an individual, your consciousness and your ability to have meaningful interactions with the world around you are dependent upon having free will then free will is very important, theologically or otherwise.

I don’t believe for a moment that free will has anything to do with love. If anything, bringing it up is a form of tanking and a kind of excuse - out of left field you might say: "BUT don’t you value your “free will?” Personally, “no, I don’t. Why should I?” Of course, if you put it in stark terms and say “love me or I’ll put a bullet in your head” than thats just psychologically sick and I don’t need to “choose” anything to want to get out of that situation. But if you keep insinuating it in other contexts, than it makes even less sense.

See post #263.

We love, most of the time, because we cannot help but do so. I don’t **know **if free will doesn’t exist, but I like to **believe **it doesn’t. Probably because it does more harm than good.

It might likewise be claimed that having other autonomous moral agents around you also does more harm than good. And that believing they ought to be free to choose courses of action likewise is not preferable as far as you are concerned. I believe Trurl subscribes to this belief. At least he has argued on its behalf.

And, thankfully, science is now showing positively that there is no good grounds for it at all.

Science is not even close to showing this unless you subscribe to the fallacy that correlation entails causation.

catholic.com/sites/default/files/audio/radioshows/ca120924a.mp3
(Beginning at 45:30 or so)

Good riddance. Along with the psychotic doctrine of “hell.”

Perhaps, when and if we ignore the psychotic effects of evil.

 

[Viewscreen]

If chronological and parochial snobbery, absent any further insight, is all you can muster, then all we can do is respond with a polite smile and “Thank you!” for your unhelpful contribution to the topic.

Yes, be sure to thank me. Or I’ll start shaking in my slippers. The medieval doctrine of eternal hell (as in torment, however you spin it) is absent any and all insight if you construe it literally. It represents simply the nadir of pathological madness prominent in the middle ages - and it can never be justified morally - never. It has also had the impact of negatively affecting the minds of many children, including yours truly.

On the contrary, if your very identity and autonomy as an individual, your consciousness and your ability to have meaningful interactions with the world around you are dependent upon having free will then free will is very important, theologically or otherwise.

I don’t think it is bound up with any of those things. I don’t feel you need to subscribe to some lofty theoretic view of libertarian free will in order to feel free or as though you are in control. Actually, why not admit none of us is in control?

It might likewise be claimed that having other autonomous moral agents around you also does more harm than good. And that believing they ought to be free to choose courses of action likewise is not preferable as far as you are concerned. I believe Trurl subscribes to this belief. At least he has argued on its behalf.

Free will, I believe, is not natural to human beings in the sense that it makes them lead inauthentic lives of needless thought and questioning. This is more of a Nietzschean view, but I think a fatalistic conception of the world ends, paradoxically, in much more psychological freedom. I have argued my case in a previous post that the absence of free will would lead people to greater innocence (as there is nothing to feel guilty over) to greater happiness (there are no regrets stifling your present enjoyment) and lastly no more grievances (there is no one you need point the finger at anymore).

Science is not even close to showing this unless you subscribe to the fallacy that correlation entails causation.

Even if it doesn’t (and I only said that it provides grounds to doubt it) and free will exists, I still see it as ultimately meaningless. It doesn’t matter whether you choose A or B. What matters is the actual content of A and B and how it effects your life presently (if it doesn’t than somehow the means provided need to get your where you need to go). That is what causes the specific mental state you have to dictate your decision. Not the other way around.

Perhaps, when and if we ignore the psychotic effects of evil.

Judging something as evil provides only the illusion of evil. In truth there is only suffering.

 

[Trurl]

ApologiaSophia:

Its not special pleading, its Virtue Ethics (Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics). If you think its special pleading my guess is that you’re probably a Kantian. Of course, even then, Kant’s moral arguments state that his universal maxims are morally binding because it shows that it is inherent to our essence. God is God, man is man. If my argument is special pleading please tell my why God is obligated to the same measure of action as we are?

Ok. let’s give it one more attempt. First, I do not subscribe to any specific school. I only accept logic and reason. No such nonsense as “essence”. Besides, in this case I am going to employ the church’s teaching, which says that there is an absolute moral code. Absolute, of course, means that it is equally applicable to everyone. If it is wrong for humans to commit genocide, then it is wrong for God. The goddess of Justice in the Roman mythology was depicted with a blindfold, indicating that justice must be applied to all, without giving special consideration to some, and it was a very wise symbolism.

ApologiaSophia:

Unless you give me a reason that God ought not to sustain evil acts, understanding the consequences of that, my argument still stands.

As long as God is assumed to be benevolent, the obligation is crystal clear. We are biological beings, who do not “value” pain and suffering (except a very few crazy individuals) and it is in our best interest to remove the pain and suffering. Last time I heard, God’s love (agape) is acting in the best interest of the loved ones. Nothing else needs to be said.

ApologiaSophia:

Explain why the consequences of only sustaining good are better off then how things are currently. All of the consequences, not just consequences like “it will end suffering.”

Why should I attempt to do that? First, it cannot be done. Second, as long as there are no obvious and detrimental secondary effects, it would be futile to try and investigate them.

ApologiaSophia:

So a “well designed” system would lack free will or moral agency? Free will, if it is well designed, can choose to be destructive or self-destructive. A system cannot be divorced from its purpose, because a system can only be well designed in as far as it fulfills its purpose. It seems to me that free will is working exactly as it was intended.

The amount of freedom built into the system should be very properly designed. A certain amount of freedom is proper, so that the designer does not have to foresee and program for all the specifics. (Example: a car, which would need no driver, should be given the freedom to choose the proper speed based upon the road (etc…) conditions, but under no circumstances would be given the freedom to drive over the cliff and kill the passengers). To give more freedom, contrary to the specifics of the system (which could destroy the designed outcome) would be the sign of incompetence or lack of caring. Freedom is never “absolute”, there are always limits to what the agents can do. The only point of contention would be: “how much freedom should be given”?

---

Peter Plato:

Special pleading applies both ways. You are holding God responsible for not interfering when you claim he should be micromanaging all actions of all agents in his creation. Why are you not equally holding yourself responsible for not micromanaging creation? Apparently because you do not have the means to do so.

There is no need to “micromanage” everyone. There is no need to handcuff everyone, just because a few people would commit murder. Most of the people could be safely left alone, since they are not about to kill, rape and maim. Those who would attempt such acts culd also be “left alone”, when it comes to normal, mundane activities. As it turns out only a handful of people in only a handful of cases need to be “interfered with”. And if I could… I would.
Peter Plato:

It seems, therefore, that ways and means do matter in terms of how beings should be held accountable.

No doubt. God should be held to a higher level of standards, not to a lower one. Just like one holds policemen to a higher level of accountability, if and when they would provide a “false testimony”, since their word is given a higher order of reliability.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A quick reading of the “fallacy of special pleading” suggests that employing the reasoning “I can’t understand what God does, because He’s infinite and I’m finite” would be a fallacy?? How can that be? Am I mis-understanding the principle you’re referring to here?

Special pleading is an informal fallacy that does not merely apply to this argument, but is more general in scope.

If we make a claim that Xs are generally Ys, but try to prove that this particular x(a) is not actually an X, we commit a fallacy when we make a claim that x(a) is an exception to the rule because there is something “special” about x(a) which is, in fact, irrelevant to the argument.
Therefore, the claim, based on the exception, that x(a) is not a Y, is in fact a fallacious one.

In this argument, Trurl is making the claim that God is a morally responsible being and must, therefore act as any other moral being, so the “special” features of omnipotence and omniscience do not exempt God from acting as any other moral being.

The problem with Trurl’s argument is that special circumstances, motives, capacities and responsibilities all come into play when assessing the moral parameters of any act. Trurl’s error is to claim that his own, i.e., Trurl’s own, view of any specific act actually takes into account all the morally relevant features of the act. In other words, Trurl assumes he has the omniscient perspective to which God must comply, when that assumption hasn’t been demonstrated.

 

[mgoforth]

Special pleading is an informal fallacy that does not merely apply to this argument, but is more general in scope.

If we make a claim that Xs are generally Ys, but try to prove that this particular x(a) is not actually an X, we commit a fallacy when we make a claim that x(a) is an exception to the rule because there is something “special” about x(a) which is, in fact, irrelevant to the argument.
Therefore, the claim, based on the exception, that x(a) is not a Y, is in fact a fallacious one.

In this argument, Trurl is making the claim that God is a morally responsible being and must, therefore act as any other moral being, so the “special” features of omnipotence and omniscience do not exempt God from acting as any other moral being.

The problem with Trurl’s argument is that special circumstances, motives, capacities and responsibilities all come into play when assessing the moral parameters of any act. Trurl’s error is to claim that his own, i.e., Trurl’s own, view of any specific act actually takes into account all the morally relevant features of the act. In other words, Trurl assumes he has the omniscient perspective to which God must comply, when that assumption hasn’t been demonstrated.

Thanks for that explanation. More helpful than the Wikipedia entry.

God’s omnipotence and omniscience certainly wouldn’t exempt God from morality as you said. However they do explain why God behaves with morality in the face of His apparent indifference to many of humanity’s problems. We just can’t understand God. Unfortunately atheists always say they understand this concept, but their reasoning shows that they don’t. They want to confine God to the limits of their human mind by trying to fully explain His thoughts and motives, which is both illogical and a symptom of pride. After all, pride is simply not admitting to the truth that God is infinitely great and we are infinitely less great.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Free will, I believe, is not natural to human beings in the sense that it makes them lead inauthentic lives of needless thought and questioning. This is more of a Nietzschean view, but I think a fatalistic conception of the world ends, paradoxically, in much more psychological freedom. I have argued my case in a previous post that the absence of free will would lead people to greater innocence (as there is nothing to feel guilty over) to greater happiness (there are no regrets stifling your present enjoyment) and lastly no more grievances (there is no one you need point the finger at anymore).

If that is your ideal view of the good life (no guilt, no regrets, no grievances) then the greatest possible good would be to develop a drug to convert all pain sensations to pleasurable ones and act without purpose or goals because all negative emotions would be nullified and your life simplified. Basically a pathetic (in the sense of miserably inadequate) view of life.

Did you ever consider that emotions, even negative ones like guilt, regret or stress, have important roles to play in human development and ought to be attended to?

A different, and more credible view, is the Aristotelian one of actualizing human powers or virtues. This perspective would relegate minimizing pain as of little concern and incidental to the greater good of achieving full human potential by activating all the virtues or “powers” of the individual, free will being precisely the exercise of all human virtues (reason, practical wisdom, courage, fair mindedness, moderation, etc.). The exercise of these virtues is a challenge, but worth it because it results in a full and complete life, Aristotle’s definition of happiness.

This perspective makes much more sense and has a far loftier ideal than your “fatalistic,” avoid negative sensations, conception.

To get a sense of exactly how abysmal your fatalistic view is, we could apply your perspective to a practical human endeavor like say, becoming physically fit.

Your fatalistic view would advocate a “Why bother?” stance. Don’t stifle your present comfort level. Don’t point the finger at yourself or feel guilty about anything. Take a “simple” attitude. Why complicate things or feel guilty about possibly failing? Forget about it! Don’t stress yourself! Etc. As a result, you become less capable and have a lowered emotional threshold for stress and pain and probably increased levels of natural guilt because your “being” intuitively senses that it is not anywhere near achieving a minimal threshold of health.

The alternative actualizing human potential view would be based upon making deliberate, even difficult or painful choices (no pain no gain) to achieve a level of fitness and putting up with a bit of discomfort to achieve that end. Guilt functions as a motivational prompt and not an enemy. Once the fitness gains are achieved they correspond with a larger “human potential” teleology of which the physical component is only one facet. The “character” training of working through the demands of physical discipline and the endurance of “pain” pay off in other areas: personal and emotional discipline, willingness to take risks, courage in the face of adversity, endurance, stamina, overcoming fear, etc.

Even as a pragmatic strategy, your fatalistic conception lacks any compelling reason for adoption. It likewise fails in the realm of ethics.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As long as God is assumed to be benevolent, the obligation is crystal clear. We are biological beings, who do not “value” pain and suffering (except a very few crazy individuals) and it is in our best interest to remove the pain and suffering. Last time I heard, God’s love (agape) is acting in the best interest of the loved ones. Nothing else needs to be said.

This is the crux of the problem with your argument. Your assumption is that human beings are only biological beings and that God therefore has a responsibility to look after our best interests (defined by you as avoidance of pain and suffering).

This is the “humans are merely God’s pets” view of the cosmos. So God has a responsibility to provide bedding, food, comfort and various additional pleasures (and that’s it!) So when he doesn’t we have a right to bawl and whine.

That is the Trurl moral view, a most inane theodicy, and one that you assume God is morally compelled to share with you, because that is in your “best interest.”

CS Lewis (who you unjustly attacked and who you should actually read with an open mind to bring you through your arrested moral and philosophical development) wrote a great deal to discredit this view.

If God’s plan for human beings and the inherent nature of our ultimate good is to attain a further stage of development (in Lewis’ terms, Zoe) which far exceeds our current state of being, then his responsibility to us, in our best interest, is to set up the environment for us to reach that state.

If we are incomplete in nature and our completion requires certain qualities in addition to our cooperation to obtain, then God has a responsibility to “set things up” so that the “environment” we find ourselves in fosters the development of those qualities. The fact that some of us refuse to cooperate to bring about our own completion and ultimate good is not the responsibility of God. He has done his part. The missing component is our cooperation.

Analogy:

A baby requires food, proper cleanliness, warmth, comfort and loving interaction. As the child grows, requirements change. A four year old does not normally require diapering or pablum. However, from the perspective of a baby used to having certain needs fulfilled, as s/he grows s/he does not recognize and may even resist changes to routines that the adult is cognizant of.

Your “we are biological beings” complaint is analogous to the baby shouting at its parent, “I am a baby being! I have a right to milk, a warm blanket and changing!” Perhaps you are, for a time, but a parent who continues to provide only for those needs past the age of one or so, is not being a good parent. A good parent would not take the point of view of the baby when making decisions about what the developing human needs.

If God is Father, rather than mere pet owner, then charging him for being an irresponsible pet owner when he is, in fact, being a responsible Father, is just wrongheaded.

To bring this home to the thread, perhaps Hell is the condition of refusing to develop into the beings we are destined to be despite all of God’s prompting and graces. Remaining stubbornly and vulnerably undeveloped when we require certain resiliant characteristics to abide in the presence of infinite Love, may make the experience a “hellish” one. Perhaps we all end up in the same place, but those who refuse to develop certain virtues experience the divine presence as “a tormenting burning fire,” but those who have developed loving and divine virtues experience unfathomable peace and ecstatic joy. Just a thought.

 

[Trurl]

Peter Plato:

This is the crux of the problem with your argument. Your assumption is that human beings are only biological beings and that God therefore has a responsibility to look after our best interests (defined by you as avoidance of pain and suffering).

I wonder if you would deny that we are “at least partially” biological beings, with biological needs. Hopefully not. You assume - without any grounds I might add - that we are not “just” biological beings. Lacking any support, this view is simply unfounded and irrational. Bring up some evidence for it, and then you can be taken more seriously. But do not bother to bring up some more empty speculations (like ancient or medieval philosophers).
Peter Plato:

That is the Trurl moral view, a most inane theodicy, and one that you assume God is morally compelled to share with you, because that is in your “best interest.”

Ok, let’s assume that we are not “only” biological beings, if only for the sake of this discussion. Obviously, if we are partially biological beings, then we also have biolgical needs, which a LOVING FATHER should provide (don’t forget, it is a christian view that LOVE is a volitional act on behalf of the person who is being loved). Furthermore, as biological beings, it is not in our best interest to be raped, beaten and tortured. If you think otherwise, then please provide some support for it (and also be ready to be tortured for your best interest ). Now, just for the fun of it, let’s say that our best interest is to get to heaven. Then the only necessary act of God would be to create us directly into heaven. What is the point of this “detour”? Jesus said that the road is narrow, and only a few will find it. The majority will end up in the “fire which is not quenched, and where the worm will gnaw on your innards” - forever! Even if someone assumes that this horrible picture is true, is this in the best interest of those who will not make the mark? And do not start to mumble about “free will”. According to christian theology, God knows up front that Jim will make it, while Joe will NOT. Before Joe is being created, Joe is innocent of any wrongdoing, even free of the original sin. So Joe does not DESERVE to be created and thus ending in eternal torture. It is NOT in Joe’s best interest to be created!. Your “theodicy” is totally bankrupt, logically and morally, and moreover it is self-contradictory. As such it needs to be discarded.

Even according to your view, God is monster, since he creates all those beings who WILL end up in hell, which is definitely not in their best interest, and who did nothing to deserve such a fate.
Peter Plato:

CS Lewis (who you unjustly attacked and who you should actually read with an open mind to bring you through your arrested moral and philosophical development) wrote a great deal to discredit this view.

Oh, I read probably more apologist books than the majority of the posters around here, Lewis, Kreeft, Strobel, etc… a load of nonsense, not worth the price of paper they were printed upon. Horrible lack of logic and a total lack of rationality. But not all were junk. There was the book by Rabbi Kuschner (“When bad things happen to good people”) which was refreshingly logical and intellectually honest.
Peter Plato:

If God’s plan for human beings and the inherent nature of our ultimate good is to attain a further stage of development (in Lewis’ terms, Zoe) which far exceeds our current state of being, then his responsibility to us, in our best interest, is to set up the environment for us to reach that state.

Some more empty speculation. Are there some “facts” behind them? How would anyone know what God’s “plans” are?
Peter Plato:

If we are incomplete in nature and our completion requires certain qualities in addition to our cooperation to obtain, then God has a responsibility to “set things up” so that the “environment” we find ourselves in fosters the development of those qualities. The fact that some of us refuse to cooperate to bring about our own completion and ultimate good is not the responsibility of God. He has done his part. The missing component is our cooperation.

Nonsense. There is no evidence for all that speculation, it is all wishful thinking and blind faith. But, again, just for the fun of it, let’s take it seriously for a moment. What is that environment you speak of? Number one requirement would be to “come clean” and state explicitly what the outcomes would be, if you “pass the test”, and what the “test” is composed of. That is a “guided tour” of heaven and hell, so we all could make INFORMED decisions. Then God should enumerate the “DO’s and DON’T’s” properly and explicitly. Of course I can already foresee your next response, namely that God did, and the catholic church has that information. Without having the intent to be disrespectful toward the church (which would be a bannable offense) all I can say is: “hogwash”. Everyone deserves to be given all that information personally and explictly - actually before they are even created, and then give them the option to accept or refuse to be created at all. That would be a decent way to handle the problem. To demand full responsibility without giving full information is the pinnacle of unjust demands.

 

[Trurl]

Peter Plato:

In this argument, Trurl is making the claim that God is a morally responsible being and must, therefore act as any other moral being, so the “special” features of omnipotence and omniscience do not exempt God from acting as any other moral being.

The problem with Trurl’s argument is that special circumstances, motives, capacities and responsibilities all come into play when assessing the moral parameters of any act. Trurl’s error is to claim that his own, i.e., Trurl’s own, view of any specific act actually takes into account all the morally relevant features of the act. In other words, Trurl assumes he has the omniscient perspective to which God must comply, when that assumption hasn’t been demonstrated.

You are about to fall into the trap of “special pleading”, too - if you are not careful.

Omniscience is not needed. As a matter of fact, we do not have (and cannot have) full information about the “motives, capacities, etc.” concerning other humans, but it does not stop us from making - tentative - value judgments. We go by the available information and employ the “duck principle”, in other words we go by the appearances - knowing fully well, that we might be mistaken. But as long as we are prepared to modify our hypothesis, IF and WHEN new information becomes available, we are on the right track. If you wish to use a different procedure for God, then you are guilty of special pleading. If you go by the available information and the appearance, then God MUST be condemned - because according to the available hard information - which is NONEXISTENT and going by the appearances, God is at best: indifferent, at worst: malevolent.

And no “omniscience” needed, but one MUST be prepared to modify and/or discard this hypothesis, IF new information becomes available. Fat chance of that…

 

[Peter_Plato]

:banghead: