The Instigator
Own3dbyOw3n
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Matt_L
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Hell does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Matt_L
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,311 times Debate No: 42399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Own3dbyOw3n

Pro

If God was all loving, he would not send ANYONE to hell, and if he sends people to hell, he is not all loving. If God is also all knowing, he knows what sin, lust, evil, greed, etc, all these emotions feel like, and if knows what these emotions feel like, then he is also not worthy of sending anyone to hell, as the bible quotes 'Do not condemn and you will not be condemned'. If the world was created by such an intelligent and all loving God, he would also not send someone to hell just because that 'someone' was not his cheerleader.

An open debate, post your arguments below and I will rebut your argument as soon as possible, thank you.
Matt_L

Con

I look forward to an interesting debate!

Your argument is based on the presupposition that man has no free will. You say that it's God that sends man to Hell, so do you not think that you make your own choices? If man has no free will and is merely a puppet on God's strings, then how can you question Him?
Debate Round No. 1
Own3dbyOw3n

Pro

Thank you for answering to my first argument.

Alright, fair enough, what you are saying is that we reap what we sow, and sow what we reap? What you are saying is that our Benevolent God created hell to punish sinners and non-believers, and that if we ever go to hell it is because we did not live a godly life.

So, lets say, if i am a muslim, or whatever other religion that has the idea of hell itself, and i go to the hell of that specific religion which i believe in, but, oh wait! I'm a non-believer of Christ, and so i must also go to the hell of the Christian God, or his fallen angel, Satan. So, will Satan / God have to snatch me over to his side of hell or..? Besides, there are 1.6 Billion Muslims alone. Thats a lot of snatching from. Obviously, it is not free will if there are consequences after you question the existence of the one who gave you 'free will'. It's like saying to your kid, 'You can do anything you want to do, i give you the free will to do so, but if you later rob a bank, and scold me for not being a good parent, i will roast you in our micro-wave oven'.

You also did not answer my first 3 points of my previous argument, which was basically my whole argument from the start.

A few counter arguments you might propose to my second argument are :

- Christianity is the only true religion, and if you say that then you give me the right to say that Christianity is NOT the truth, as you are basically saying that all other religions are wrong and yours isn't.

- God works in mysterious ways.

- Satan goes against God, and God gives him the free will, so he is able to send people to hell, as it is God's will and cannot be questioned. Satan is not God, you cannot blame God for what Satan does ( although Satan acts under the command of God )

Thank you for your time in reading this.
Matt_L

Con

Pro has brought up some excellent points which I will attempt to address.

-Rebuttal of My Rebuttal-
1) Pro asked: "What you are saying is that we reap what we sow, and sow what we reap?" Yes, this is essentially a correct understanding of what I said. Humans have the freedom to choose how to live their lives, but those choices do have consequences.
2) Which leads us to the very last part of Pro's rebuttal: "if we ever go to hell it is because we did not live a godly life." According to the Bible*, this is not true. Simply living a godly life will not get you out of Hell. The Bible says "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"(Romans 6:23 ESV). It also says ""For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16 ESV). We see clearly from these verses that people are free to choose between life and death (traditionally 'death' is seen as hell).
3) Now, moving back to the middle of Pro's rebuttal. "What you are saying is that our Benevolent God created hell to punish sinners and non-believers..."I don't believe I ever said that.

-Hell From Other Religions-
This is an interesting but strange idea brought up by Pro. Here are the problems with it:
1) For this argument to work, it must be assumed that Christian beliefs are correct. If they are, then a Muslim who does not have salvation from Christ would not go to Muslim hell because Muslim hell is not a component of Christian belief.
2) Now let's make a different assumption for the sake of this argument. Somehow, this idea is what really happens. Someone who's belief system includes hell will go to this version of hell and have to be snatched away by God. What about someone who's religion does not include hell? Where would they go? Where would God snatch them from?
3) Back to assuming that Christian beliefs are correct. Pro stated "there are 1.6 Billion Muslims alone. That's a lot of snatching from." As was also stated by Pro, this is the Christian God doing the snatching. The God of Christians would have no problem snatching 1.6 billion people from anywhere.

-Free Will-
It seems that Pro does not understand what free will is, based on this statement: "Obviously, it is not free will if there are consequences after you question the existence of the one who gave you 'free will'. It's like saying to your kid, 'You can do anything you want to do, I give you the free will to do so, but if you later rob a bank, and scold me for not being a good parent, I will roast you in our micro-wave oven'."
I would like to point out that consequences do not erase free will. If anything, consequences are on outline that makes free will more distinct. Consequences tell you exactly what exercising your free will get you, but your still free to exercise it. The kid in Pro's analogy still has the ability to choose whether or not he's going to rob a bank or question his parent even though he knows the end result of those choices.

-Arguments I Should Have Made-
Pro listed several arguments that I should have made back in round one. I appreciate Pro giving me ideas, but I had no need to look any farther than the base of your argument to see the flaw I needed to refute.

* I realize that my opponent, and many who read this debate, may not believe in the inerrant quality of the Bible and do not believe that it should be used as a source. But, Pro's ideas of Hell and God and things like that seem to originate from the Bible (even if they've since wandered far from it), so this is why I will use the Bible as a source.
Debate Round No. 2
Own3dbyOw3n

Pro

Hello there, Mr Matt_L. Owen is a little busy with work and thus, has given me the opportunity to debate with you on the motion of whether Hell exists or not. I'm pleased to accept the challenge :)

Now, I have read the above arguments posted and I must say that both of you did not stay on the topic of the debate itself. Both of you were arguing about whether God is evil or not. Both of you were arguing on the basis/assumption that hell does exist and therefore, started arguing about the reasons as to why a loving God would send non-believers to hell. This is not the subject of this debate. We are discussing on whether Hell exists in the first place or not. Whether or not the reasons for sending a person to hell are legitimate is completely irrelevant to this debate and thus, we should really get back on topic.

Now, before we move on, let us be clear of who the Burden of Proof is on. The people who claim that Hell exists are usually religious folks who claim that if a person does not follow the rules of their religion, they will go to hell. Though Owen is skeptical and claims that Hell does not exist, the idea of Hell, originally, was from religious people and therefore, the Burden of Proof is upon you to give evidence as to why there is a Hell where humans will be tortured for all eternity.

Let's get started, shall we? My first and main substantive for this debate would be entitled Evidence. Currently, there has been no evidence whatsoever for the existence of hell. Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. There has been no such evidence whatsoever which can indicate that the belief in a Hell is true or valid. If there is some evidence on your part, please state it here with links to different websites so that I can easily cross-check the information. Now, the normal response to this would be that the Bible is evidence that Hell is real. Well, the validity of the Bible is questionable in itself, since there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that anything in the Bible is of any historical value. If there is any evidence to prove that the events in the Bible are true, please indicate them here, again with links so that I can cross-check the evidence and information

My second substantive will be entitled Physical Implications. Whether Hell is a place of torture or a place of love and kindness is completely irrelevant. That's a debate for another day. But it must be physical. It must be a part of this Universe and therefore, must be composed of matter. Fires need fuel so there must be an infinite amount of oxygen in order to fuel the eternal lakes of fires of Hell, scientifically speaking. Therefore, Hell must be a part of the Universe. However, as funny as it may sound, Scientists have been unsuccessful in detecting any sort of physical place which has lakes of eternal fires or anything of that sort. You might say that the place might be invisible to us. However, even if a certain place is individual, as it is composed of matter, it must have some sort of effect on the Universe and if there were lakes of eternal fire in Hell, we would see some of their effects on the Universe around us. So far, we have not been able to see any of these effects on the Universe. We know this because we have traced all of the phenomenon to stars and galaxies. We've traced back supernovas to exploding stars and black holes to stars collapsing on their own gravity. Again, this is related to the evidence but you must provide evidence which is scientifically-based and must obey the laws of physics and mechanics.

For my third and last argument, there have been no eyewitnesses for the horrors of Hell. It really is hard to describe what you have not seen, felt or experienced. So, how can you describe Hell based upon a book or a few books written by peasants who did not know where the rain came from? How can you describe Hell on the basis that it is a place for torture only because a holy book tells you that it is? Do not trust everything that a book tells you to trust. Even if you do trust it, test out what the book claims before making your own conclusions. This is a basic principle in science as well as philosophy. I don't always trust things in my Physics textbook, though I love Science and Math, and I always ask my teachers to show me evidence. They always succeed in showing me evidence which makes me accept whatever the book says. So, before you decide to go believing a book like the Bible or any religious scripture of any religion, please try to search for evidence. By seeing the evidence, you learn to accept the facts and move on. But if there is no evidence of something, it cannot be accepted without peer review and a large amount of external scrutiny.

I shall wait for your reply and I shall answer all of your substantives. Please try to type out each point under one paragraph so I can easily answer to each of your points. Thank you very much and have a good day :)
Matt_L

Con

I agreed to debate this topic with Owen, not whoever you are. This is a violation of the rules of this debate. If Owen doesn't have enough time to debate, I understand and respect that. But I won't accept this change in debaters.
Debate Round No. 3
Own3dbyOw3n

Pro

Own3dbyOw3n forfeited this round.
Matt_L

Con

Pro forfeited the last round. I have nothing else to add without further input by Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Own3dbyOw3n

Pro

Own3dbyOw3n forfeited this round.
Matt_L

Con

Pro has once again forfeited a round and I have nothing else to add to my arguments.

However, I ask that only the rounds in which Owen and myself debated be considered by the voters. The forfeited rounds and imposter round should be discarded due to lack of argument by my original opponent. I'm sure that if he could have further participated in this debate, he would have.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by drewman1 3 years ago
drewman1
No, Hell is your choice. You can fulfill what God created you to do or do your own thing. If you do your own thing, God isn't gonna stop you, and so your not of Him anymore. Also, if you only go to Hell for a short while, then its a pretty worthless fight for the devil because he doesn't get what he is after, your soul.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
Hell is an abomination made by God to torture people he supposedly loves.
Posted by BryceBennett 3 years ago
BryceBennett
What I think your saying is that people who break God's rules like killing stealing etc. will get to live in heaven and not have to face the music. What I think is that they should go to hell a short time depending what they did and then get another chance.
Posted by drewman1 3 years ago
drewman1
Shoot, I wish I got to debate this guy. If Hell doesn't exist then whats the point of Jesus coming?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Own3dbyOw3nMatt_LTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It should not matter to Con who he is debating with, as long as they are still talking about the same subject. It was an improper thing to do in an educated debate, but that is no reason for Con to refuse to continue. For that reason conduct is a tie. Spelling an Grammar were generally equal throughout the debate as well. Arguments go to Pro because Con was not able to counter the simple contention that if God is all-loving, he would not send people to Hell for such minor "sins". Sources are tied, as none were cited.
Vote Placed by TheUser 3 years ago
TheUser
Own3dbyOw3nMatt_LTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because of the imposter and forfeits. Con convinced me with his arguments so it goes to him. That's all.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Own3dbyOw3nMatt_LTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.