Prison is not a punishment... it is a choice!?

[danserr]

To be more precise, can the “natural consequences model” be rationally accepted or not.

Again, you speak of “facts”, instead of unfounded assertions.

No one can do that. I have seen all the attempts from A to Z, and none of them was successful. Obviously not, since if it could be done, then “faith” would become unnecessary. And “faith” (to accept something that cannot be rationally substantiated) is considered superior to reason in “virtue”.

You missed the point of my last post, and now we are far off topic. We are discussing the coherence of the natural consequences view of hell, and you are throwing stuff out there ranging from the existence of God, the resurrection, divine hiddenness, and the like. Those are not relevant. You keep trying to object "but you can’t show x (the resurrection for example) is true. But I am not trying to!

I am making one great big IF. That is the point. Can we come to a coherent understanding of the natural consequences view of hell. So I am maintaining that:

In short, the natural consequences of separating oneself one God is just as “natural” as a diver separating himself from his oxygen; one separates himself from the source of eternal goodness and joy and the natural consequence follows directly. In separating oneself from the source of eternal joy, one suffers the consequence of eternal misery, which is hell.

You seem, however, to have abandoned you attempt to argue whether this view is coherent or not and to just be throwing out other objections to hell and theism (like divine hiddenness). I will give one example:

you objected:

but God doesn’t give everyone information to make morally informed decisions.

I replied:

God makes known his moral laws to everyone on the basis of general revelation, so no one is totally without excuse

In reply, you did not object to the coherence of this answer, you only made the (unsubstantiated) assertion that it was untrue. But that is not the point! The point is just if this is a coherent understanding of the natural consequences view of hell or not. This you have not denied, so my task is done.

Hence, most of your objections are just irrelevant, like your claim that I can’t offer good evidence that God exists. You are wrong, but that is not the point of the thread, hence your objections on this score are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
My point is that because a defender of the natural consequences model would hold that separation of God will be misery after death but is not now, is that now you have a body through which you are able to enjoy the pleasures of the world. After death you will not.

In other words, there is no natural causation between the acts an suffering. At best you could say that there is an “unnatural” (or supernatural) causation.

That is a non sequitur. Separation from God after death naturally entails separation from eternal happiness, goodness, and joy since He is the source of these things.

Yes, a usual course of action. If the quotation is unpleasant, claim that it is just an allegory.

Rhetorical puffery. This is no evidence against the coherence the the natural consequences model of hell.

Back to the “Ratification Day” model? Still does not work. I would simply say what Bertrand Russell was saying: “Ok, so you are real, after all. Why didn’t you give unmistakable signs of your existence and your requirements?”. (I am sure some nincompoops would be itching to utter a nonsense remark about free will here. Let’s hope they will not.)

Another non sequitur. You are now bringing up divine hiddenness. That is a subject for another thread. (and I have discussed it in detail in other threads, but refuse to derail this one.) On it see this article by Michael Murray on divine hiddennnes. Your ignorance on the relevance of free will to this issue is noted.

At the risk of following you off topic, I want to address your claim that people are not responsible for their beliefs. This means that:

1. A neo-nazi is not doing anything wrong in believing that Jews should be exterminated.
2. A person who believes blacks are inferior and should be sold into slavery is not morally responsible for this belief.
3. A person might willfully ignore evidence that would force him to change his belief. On your view, since he still sincerely holds the wrong belief, he is not morally responsible.

• This is obviously absurd.

Second, you claim that a person cannot be held morally responsible for doing something they “sincerely” think is right. This means:

1. Since Hitler sincerely thought he was right to kill the Jews, he cannot be held morally responsible for it.

• this is obviously absurd. Sincerity of a belief is not enough to justify it. Those curious can find in chapter 5 of C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce an explanation of how one can be responsible for a “sincere” belief. Here I do not explain that, only point out the absurd consequences it entails.

In short, nothing you have said so far gives us reason to doubt the coherence of the natural consequences view of hell that holds that hell is simply the natural consequence of a person separating himself from God, much like a diver who cuts his own breathing tube, thereby separating himself from his source of oxygen.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

It would be nice to see and experience that love and grace. No I did not reject God, but I do not believe that God exists. However I cwertainlyreject what many people SAY about God.

Big hypothetical for you but I wanted to ask. Let’s say you did find God and you accepted his existence, does this mean you would also accept His will, and commandments?

Also do you think those who know God are somehow incapable of rejecting Him?

 

[Serious]

I am making one great big IF. That is the point. Can we come to a coherent understanding of the natural consequences view of hell.

Just because an argument is logically coherent, it does not mean that it is logically sound. (Every elephant can play the violin. Jumbo is an elephant. Therefore Jumbo can play a violin. This would be a logicall valid, but unsound argument.)

1. You make an assumption, namely that God is the source of all good.
2. You make another assumption, namely that performing certain acts MEAN that one rejects God.
3. Your third assumption is that God made the “do’s” and “don’t’s” known to everone and therefore no one has no excuse to say that one is unaware of those requirements and the consequences.
4. Your conclusion is: “therefore performing those acts, one volitionally cuts himself off from the source of all good, and chooses that which is all torture and suffering”.

Your whole reasoning is based on three unsubstantiated assumptions. Therefore your argument could be (at best!) logically valid (or coherent), but it is not logically sound. But reality is even worse, because there is something missing.

You keep on forgetting that the church teaches the concept of Judgment. God has the option to forgive any and all transgressions, if he would so choose, repentance or no repentance. It is also taught that God does not forgive unconditionally. Therefore it is God who explicitly sends people to hell for eternal suffering. (Your diver analogy has been shown to be false. Your mistreated spouse analogy has also been shown to be false.)

As such your argument is not even logically coherent.

At this point you might feel inclined to say that I am dragging in God’s justice, and that is unwarranted, it should be discussed in a different thread. This has been your tactics recently. Of course you consider it proper to bring up unsubstantiate assumptions about God, but you deny that I should be allowed to bring in church teachings about God? Most peculiar.

My conclusion is that you failed to substantiate even the logical coherence of your theory, much less the logical soundness of it. If you have some new ideas, please, present them. But do not bring up the same arguments again, because it would be just wasting your time and mine.

 

[Serious]

Big hypothetical for you but I wanted to ask. Let’s say you did find God and you accepted his existence, does this mean you would also accept His will, and commandments?

Sorry to sound vague, but my answer is “it depends”. If he would order me to go and kill the worshippers of some “false god”, then I would refuse. If he would order me to give all my possessions away to the poor, then I would comply. However, as I look at the world as it exists today, I would not feel inclined to worship God. If he could explain why this world is “optimal” (that is not even omnipotence could make it better) then I would reconsider. But the chance of that is slim to none.

Also do you think those who know God are somehow incapable of rejecting Him?

They are, of course, capable of rejecting him.

 

[LilyM]

Sorry to sound vague, but my answer is “it depends”. If he would order me to go and kill the worshippers of some “false god”, then I would refuse. If he would order me to give all my possessions away to the poor, then I would comply. However, as I look at the world as it exists today, I would not feel inclined to worship God. If he could explain why this world is “optimal” (that is not even omnipotence could make it better) then I would reconsider. But the chance of that is slim to none.

They are, of course, capable of rejecting him.

Let me put a case to you. Imagine you are a European living circa 1788 (when Australia was first settled by the Brits). All your life all the swans you have ever seen are white, all the stuff you’ve ever read about swans describes them as being white. As far as you know, swans are white, end of story.

Let’s say your friend Joe goes to Australia and writes you a letter. ‘Mate, you’re never going to believe this - they have swans here just like back home - only they’re ALL BLACK, every last blessed one of them!’. Then slowly more and more letters trickle back from loads of other people you know who’ve travelled to Australia, all saying the same thing - that there are black swans.

Would you be justified in saying 'well I’VE never seen a black swan, the only swans I’VE ever seen are white, therefore there is simply no such thing as a black swan full stop.

Furthermore I refuse to believe that they exist, no matter how many apparently sane, rational and generally accurately observant people have seen ample evidence for their existence to be utterly convinced, and however low the likelihood that they are all lying or mistaken. And nothing apart from my own personal observation of a black swan will
convince me. There is no possibility that I could be mistaken, no possibility that all these people who are convinced that black swans exist could be right.’

Because that is what you are saying. With your attitude it’s a wonder you believe in your own existence - there is as little evidence for that as for God’s!

 

[Serious]

Let me put a case to you. Imagine you are a European living circa 1788 (when Australia was first settled by the Brits). All your life all the swans you have ever seen are white, all the stuff you’ve ever read about swans describes them as being white. As far as you know, swans are white, end of story.

Let’s say your friend Joe goes to Australia and writes you a letter. ‘Mate, you’re never going to believe this - they have swans here just like back home - only they’re ALL BLACK, every last blessed one of them!’. Then slowly more and more letters trickle back from loads of other people you know who’ve travelled to Australia, all saying the same thing - that there are black swans.

Would you be justified in saying 'well I’VE never seen a black swan, the only swans I’VE ever seen are white, therefore there is simply no such thing as a black swan full stop.

Furthermore I refuse to believe that they exist, no matter how many apparently sane, rational and generally accurately observant people have seen ample evidence for their existence to be utterly convinced, and however low the likelihood that they are all lying or mistaken. And nothing apart from my own personal observation of a black swan will
convince me. There is no possibility that I could be mistaken, no possibility that all these people who are convinced that black swans exist could be right.’

Because that is what you are saying. With your attitude it’s a wonder you believe in your own existence - there is as little evidence for that as for God’s!

Ok, let’s play your game. In the little story you describe, there is nothing wrong with accepting the testimony of others. It follows from my obvious lack of omniscience that it is unreasonable on my part to say that it is totally, completely impossible that there cannot be black swans. Birds come in different colors, I have personally observed animals of the same species having different colors. For example pigeons, dogs, horses, whatever. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that those people are not mistaken and that there are black swans, even if I have never seen one. So far I think we are in agreement.

Unfortunately your little analogy is way off the mark. First of all, I can go to Australia, and personally verify their claims. Second, as shown above, the claim of the black swans is not out of the ordinary. Third, whether there are black swans or not is totally irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. Their existence or non-existence simply does not matter.

Now, let’s create a better analogy:

If those people would claim that in Australia they “saw” invisible beings, which can perform miracles, which can lay their invisible hands on dead people and resurrect them, who can walk on water, then I would remain skeptical. I would say that their testmonial is self-contradictory, since one cannot “see” invisible beings. Maybe those people are generally reliable, honest and well meaning people. But even honest and well meaning people can be mistaken, maybe there is something that affected their senses, or maybe they are all delusional, or maybe they are playing a good practical joke on me.

Nevertheless, it is still possible that their testimonial was “basically” correct (apart from seeing the invisible beings) and I could not “prove” that they are wrong. The possibility is still there, but extremely small. So I would play the percentages, and come to a conclusion: “what is more probable? that some people became delusional, or that there are these really, really strange beings, who have insofar incredible powers?” And guess what? I would say that the chance of the people being delusional is far greater than the chance of those incredible beings actually existing. And if those people would add some demands that I must “worship” those beings, otherwise I will suffer some really unpleasant consequences, than I would definitely discount their testimony.

This is not even an analogy. This is pretty much what your claim actually is.

Now here comes the clincher: I could still go to Australia and verify the claims for myself. And this is the point where your analogy really fails. None of your claims can be verified - not even in principle. It is either I believe you, or I don’t. And you have no credibility for two reasons: one, some of your claims are logically contradictory (and that is inexcusable), and two, some of your claims contradict reality as we know it (which is almost as bad). You are aware that it all boils down to credibility. Without wishing to offend you (or anyone else) you simply have no credibilty.

 

[mwok]

Serious

If believing in God is to you the equivalence of believing in the toothfairy or Santa Clause, please direct me to a major university that employs a professor that lectures on the non-existence of the toothfairy or Santa Clause.

 

[Serious]

If believing in God is to you the equivalence of believing in the toothfairy or Santa Clause, please direct me to a major university that employs a professor that lectures on the non-existence of the toothfairy or Santa Clause.

I am not aware of any universities that deal with the existence or nonexistence of God. Of course your question is just a variant on the fallacy of: “many people believe in God, so this belief must be taken seriously” - which is just an argumentum of numeram.

 

[mwok]

I am not aware of any universities that deal with the existence or nonexistence of God. Of course your question is just a variant on the fallacy of: “many people believe in God, so this belief must be taken seriously” - which is just an argumentum of numeram.

Or maybe my arguement is based on the fact that several educated men, such as Richard Dawkins and Bill Mahr(yes, I believe they are intelligent but very angry idividuals), write and speak volumes on the futility and idiocy of the belief in/of God which to them is a fictional character. Yet, I am not aware of any educated men ranting about futility and idiocy of the belief in the toothfairy.

Point being, God is fictional to you like the toothfairy but nobody else seems to make a big deal about the toothfairy. I think you are angry like the educated men I listed above, and find scoffing believers as a way to vent your frustration at not feeling heard.

 

[Serious]

Or maybe my arguement is based on the fact that several educated men, such as Richard Dawkins and Bill Mahr(yes, I believe they are intelligent but very angry idividuals), write and speak volumes on the futility and idiocy of the belief in/of God which to them is a fictional character. Yet, I am not aware of any educated men ranting about futility and idiocy of the belief in the toothfairy.

Point being, God is fictional to you like the toothfairy but nobody else seems to make a big deal about the toothfairy.

Of course not. Since there is no one who would issue dire warnings or threats to those who not share their beliefs. And if there would be some people who would do it, they would be considered mentally unhinged - and rightfully so.

I think you are angry like the educated men I listed above, and find scoffing believers as a way to vent your frustration at not feeling heard.

Don’t make such assumptions about others. My emotion toward you is not anger, it is sorrow and sadness. You might not believe this, but I actually feel sorry for many of you. Not all, of course. There are quite a few who are good, balanced people, whose life is more fulfilled because of their belief. But there is a darker side of the picture. All those poor people, mostly teenagers whose life is constant frustration, shame and anxiety because they take the nonsense seriously about their natural acts to release the pressure from their hormones.

 

[mwok]

Of course not. Since there is no one who would issue dire warnings or threats to those who not share their beliefs. And if there would be some people who would do it, they would be considered mentally unhinged - and rightfully so.

All sorts of people issue warnings and threats to those don’t share their beliefs, namely our president, and they would not be considered mentally unhinged by most.

Don’t make such assumptions about others. My emotion toward you is not anger, it is sorrow and sadness. You might not believe this, but I actually feel sorry for many of you. Not all, of course. There are quite a few who are good, balanced people, whose life is more fulfilled because of their belief. But there is a darker side of the picture. All those poor people, mostly teenagers whose life is constant frustration, shame and anxiety because they take the nonsense seriously about their natural acts to release the pressure from their hormones.

You say sorrow and sadness, experience tells me anger due to poor handling of stressors.
I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad… you accuse me of assuming and yet the majority of this portion is just that.

 

[LilyM]

Ok, let’s play your game. In the little story you describe, there is nothing wrong with accepting the testimony of others. It follows from my obvious lack of omniscience that it is unreasonable on my part to say that it is totally, completely impossible that there cannot be black swans. Birds come in different colors, I have personally observed animals of the same species having different colors. For example pigeons, dogs, horses, whatever. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that those people are not mistaken and that there are black swans, even if I have never seen one. So far I think we are in agreement.

Unfortunately your little analogy is way off the mark. First of all, I can go to Australia, and personally verify their claims. Second, as shown above, the claim of the black swans is not out of the ordinary. Third, whether there are black swans or not is totally irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. Their existence or non-existence simply does not matter.

Now, let’s create a better analogy.

If those people would claim that in Australia they “saw” invisible beings, which can perform miracles, which can lay their invisible hands on dead people and resurrect them, who can walk on water, then I would remain skeptical. I would say that their testmonial is self-contradictory, since one cannot “see” invisible beings. Maybe those people are generally
reliable, honest and well meaning people. But even honest and well meaning people can be mistaken, maybe there is something that affected their senses, or maybe they are all delusional, or maybe they are playing a good practical joke on me.

Nevertheless, it is still possible that their testimonial was “basically” correct (apart from seeing the invisible beings) and I could not “prove” that they are wrong. The possibility is still there, but extremely small. So I would play the percentages, and come to a conclusion: “what is more probable? that some people became delusional, or that there
are these really, really strange beings, who have insofar incredible powers?” And guess
what? I would say that the chance of the people being delusional is far greater than the chance of those incredible beings actually existing. And if those people would add some demands that I must “worship” those beings, otherwise I will suffer some really unpleasant consequences, than I would definitely discount their testimony.

This is not even an analogy. This is pretty much what your claim actually is.

Now here comes the clincher: I could still go to Australia and verify the claims for myself. And this is the point where your analogy really fails. None of your claims can be verified - not even in principle. It is either I believe you, or I don’t. And you have no credibility for two reasons: one, some of your claims are logically contradictory (and that is inexcusable), and two, some of your claims contradict reality as we know it (which is almost as bad).
You are aware that it all boils down to credibility. Without wishing to offend you (or anyone else) you simply have no credibilty.

I have never said, nor do I believe, that you necessarily have to worship anything. I honestly cannot say whether your nonbelief is genuinely invincible ignorance or simply the result of willful intellectual laziness or pride, or perhaps caused by something entirely different altogether.

And I really could not care less whether a stranger on the Internet finds my logic compelling or not. Your assertions that I am not being logical is no more evidence that I am than my assertion that God exists is evidence of His existence.

Getting back to the swans - I fail to see why you, who have never seen or heard of a black swan, should any more acknowledge them as a possibility than you should acknowledge the possibility of swans that are 20-foot-tall, after all birds do come in a large
variety of sizes. Or, say, swans that are fluorescent pink with fluorescent yellow stripes, which is no more nor less statistically possible than black.

Just because some birds come in a variety of colours by no means makes it likely that all species of bird do. After all, sharks come in just the one colour even when other species of fish show variety.

 

[Serious]

I have never said, nor do I believe, that you necessarily have to worship anything.

It is part of the counter scenario I presented.

Getting back to the swans - I fail to see why you, who have never seen or heard of a black swan, should any more acknowledge them as a possibility than you should acknowledge the possibility of swans that are 20-foot-tall, after all birds do come in a large variety of sizes. Or, say, swans that are fluorescent pink with fluorescent yellow stripes, which is no more nor less statistically possible than black.

I already answered your swan question. No need to repeat it. Just go back and read it again.

You may keep inventing less and less likely scenarios (20 feet tall birds with built-in propellers to aid their flight and wheels instead of legs) and I will less likely accept those claims solely on testimonials. Why are you surprised? Are you going to accept any claim without proper justification? And, of course you forgot about the crux of the matter. If I want to ascertain the existence of those pink-and-yellow checkered birds, who wear cute little golden crowns and whose body is not covered with plumage, but with hair, all I have to do is check them out for myself, and the testimonials become superfluous.

By the way, this line of thought has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. If you wish to open a new one about the credibility of believers, you are most welcome to do so.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Serious
**
I am not aware of any universities that deal with the existence or nonexistence of God. Of course your question is just a variant on the fallacy of: “many people believe in God, so this belief must be taken seriously” - which is just an argumentum of numeram. **

The argumentum ad numeram is simply another way of saying common sense. The same people who dis the argumentum ad numeram I have also noticed are the same people who will dis common sense.

In other words, Serious, common sense is not to be taken seriously?

 

[danserr]

Just because an argument is logically coherent, it does not mean that it is logically sound. (Every elephant can play the violin. Jumbo is an elephant. Therefore Jumbo can play a violin. This would be a logicall valid, but unsound argument.)

1. You make an assumption, namely that God is the source of all good.
2. You make another assumption, namely that performing certain acts MEAN that one rejects God.
3. Your third assumption is that God made the “do’s” and “don’t’s” known to everone and therefore no one has no excuse to say that one is unaware of those requirements and the consequences.
4. Your conclusion is: “therefore performing those acts, one volitionally cuts himself off from the source of all good, and chooses that which is all torture and suffering”.

Your whole reasoning is based on three unsubstantiated assumptions. …

So, you have merely reaffirmed my previous post. You have given up trying to discuss the coherence of the natural consequences view of hell. Instead you have tried to distract from the issue by trying to make me argue that God exists, is the source of all good, is the source of divine commands.

Those are fine questions, but not the point of this thread. This thread is concerned with the coherence of the natural consequences view of hell to which you objected in your opening post. Your failure to understand this is evidence when you say:

just because an argument is logically coherent, it does not mean that it is logically sound

Obviously! But all I am doing here is defending its coherence. If you are prepared to grant this (which you practically seem to have based on your replies), then I have done my job.

In fact you have abandoned any attempt to show that the natural consequences view is an incoherent way of understanding hell except for the following when you say,

You keep on forgetting that the church teaches the concept of Judgment. God has the option to forgive any and all transgressions, if he would so choose, repentance or no repentance. It is also taught that God does not forgive unconditionally. Therefore it is God who explicitly sends people to hell for eternal suffering. (Your diver analogy has been shown to be false. Your mistreated spouse analogy has also been shown to be false.)

Even if I granted that the Church’s view was incompatible with my own (which I do not), how would this phase a Protestant? Hence, you argument is not about the coherence of the natural consequences view at all! It’s just the claim that a Catholic can’t hold it!

That being said, you are wrong, since a Catholic could simply understand judgement to mean that God ratifies the choice of the unrepentant soul to separate himself from God.

God does not forgive those who will not repent. He offers them forgiveness, but they will not receive it; hence those who do not repent choose to separate themselves from God. In separating themselves from God, they separate themselves from the soul of eternal goodness, joy, and happiness; the natural consequences of separating oneself from eternal joy is eternal misery, or as the Church calls it, hell.

Your claim that my analogies have been shown to be mistaken is a bare assertion.

In short,

We have seen that while it is possible to understand hell in terms of punishment, it is also possible for a Christian to take a natural consequences view of hell. In this case, hell is understood, not so much as punishment, but as the natural consequences of one separating oneself from God. Like a diver who cuts his own breathing tube separates himself from his source of oxygen, a person may also separate himself from God. He does this by sinning against the moral law that God makes known to everyone by means of general revelation. By not repenting this sin, a person separates himself from the source of eternal goodness and joy. The natural consequences of separating himself from the eternal goodness and joy found in God, is eternal misery. This we call hell.

 

[Serious]

Obviously! But all I am doing here is defending its coherence. If you are prepared to grant this (which you practically seem to have based on your replies), then I have done my job.

If that makes you happy, then you chalk up a “victory”. Somehow I don’t see that a logically valid and totally unsound reasoning is something to celebrate. But, each 'is own, I guess. Remember:

All elephants can play the violin.
Jumbo is an elephant.
Therefore Jumbo can play the violin.

That is your argument. Now whether Jumbo actually can play the violin or not hinges on the veracity of your “axiom”, namely “All elephants can play the violin”. If this happens to be false, then your whole arguments collapses.

We have seen that while it is possible to understand hell in terms of punishment, it is also possible for a Christian to take a natural consequences view of hell.

Sure they can. As long as they posit some convenient axioms, they can even logically “prove” that heaven is all misery and hell is great.

Here comes a proof:

1. The devil is the source of all joy and happiness.
2. Those who reject God and accept the Devil will enjoy that eternal happiness.
3. Therefore those who worship God, cut themselves off from the joy and happiness that the Devil provides, and will be confined to heaven, with all its misery.

It is exactly as logically valid as your reasoning. Now what?

 

[Serious]

In other words, Serious, common sense is not to be taken seriously?

No.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Serious

**No. **

Just as I thought!

 

[danserr]

Here comes a proof:

1. The devil is the source of all joy and happiness.
2. Those who reject God and accept the Devil will enjoy that eternal happiness.
3. Therefore those who worship God, cut themselves off from the joy and happiness that the Devil provides, and will be confined to heaven, with all its misery.

It is exactly as logically valid as your reasoning. Now what?

That’s easily answered.

If your premise 1 is true, then following God will entail misery, despair, and rejection of all goodness. But God is, by definition, a being worthy of worship; if following a being entailed eternal despair and misery, then that being would not be worthy of worship, and so would not be God.

If that makes you happy, then you chalk up a “victory”. Somehow I don’t see that a logically valid and totally unsound reasoning is something to celebrate. But, each 'is own, I guess. Remember:

So by way of review.

1. You raised an objection to the coherence of the doctrine of hell, understood according to the natural consequences theory (where hell is simply the natural consequences of separating oneself from God.
   2 .I answered it, as you seem to have conceded.
2. You then protested, "but that doesn’t prove your version of hell actually exists.

Obviously. But your remark 3 does not follow. The only purpose of this thread was to answer an objection.

By way of example:

Suppose you raised an objection to the coherence of theism, and say “God be omnipotent because he can’t make a square circle.” Suppose I reply, “that’s absurd, the concept of a square circle is incoherent nonsense.” You then reply, “well fine, but that doesn’t prove that God exists!”

No kidding. That would be the job of other arguments. But it would still be true that I have answered an objection and shown that your objection to God (or in this case hell) was misguided.

You do make the reasonable point that a Christian can’t be happy just to answer misguided objections, he also had to be able to make a capable positive case for belief, but that is the subject of another thread.

 

[Serious]

If your premise 1 is true, then following God will entail misery, despair, and rejection of all goodness. But God is, by definition, a being worthy of worship; if following a being entailed eternal despair and misery, then that being would not be worthy of worship, and so would not be God.

Only by your definiton. Someone else may use a different definition, and then what? One can use the definition that only the devil allows you to do anything and everything without fear of repercussions, and that is the greatest possible pleasure and joy. This view is also logically coherent. And just because a view is logically consistent, it is not worth to consider, if it is totally unfounded.

Using an arbitrary set of axioms you can prove anything and everything in that axiomatic system. It does not have to do anything with reality.