The Instigator
MailboxVegetable
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Hell is immoral and unjustified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
MailboxVegetable
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,358 times Debate No: 57156
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (6)

 

MailboxVegetable

Pro

Introduction/rules
There are usually 4 different main views of hell that the majority of Christians believe, being:
A. Everlasting conscious torment
B. Everlasting metaphorical mental pain from the separation of God
C. Annihilationsim (soul is destroyed in hell)
D. Universalism (everybody gets to heaven eventually after purgatory or hell)

I will not argue against the last three, but instead I will argue that option A is unjust and immoral.

If you take this debate as Con, you must believe the following:
Those who do not convert to Christianity before they die will go to Hell.
Those who go to Hell are in conscious pain for the rest of eternity.
Those who go to Hell will never escape.

I recognize that the burden of proof rests mostly upon me.

Rounds:
Round 1 will be acceptance and any courtesies either wishes to administer.
Round 2 will Pro's opening argument and con's rebuttals
Round 3 will be rebuttals and whatever new arguments either side wishes to add
Round 4 will be a conclusion, each side summing up their arguments for their position. No new arguments may be given

With that out of the way, I wish to say that I am looking forward to debating whoever will accept this challenge. Please do not take this debate if you disagree with the rules specified above and please do not forfeit.
daley

Con

I accept the terms of this debate with one adjustment. I will be arguing that people only suffer in hell for a time, but will afterwards suffer eternally in another place known as the lake of fire. I will show that Pro's case against eternal, conscious torment is flawed, and also show why such a punishment for unbelievers is justified.

Please do not forfeit, Pro. I'm looking forward to a stimulating, intellectual debate.
Debate Round No. 1
MailboxVegetable

Pro

Thank you to Daley for accepting this debate. I'm excited to have a nice and interesting debate with you, and I'm looking forward to understanding your reasoning for your position.

Opening Arguments:

1. The Lottery of Religions:

Pascal's Wager is a common Christian argument that states that it is better to be a Christian and for there to be no God than it is to be an atheist and for there to be a God. A visual of this argument can be seen in this link:

http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca...

But this is fundamentally flawed reasoning that reduces the choice of believing in the Christian God down to only two choices; belief or non-belief. The reality of the situation is much starker since there are over 10,000 different religions in the world. When confronted with the sheer number of religions to choose from, this idea starts to look less like a wager and more like a lottery. The lottery of religions can be seen in this link:

http://i.imgur.com...

This is only a small fraction of the 10,000 different religions in the history of the world because we couldn't possibly accommodate all of them in a single spreadsheet, and I remind you that there are even more widely differing sects within each religion.

Now, there are 10,000 different "numbers" to choose from in the lottery with each one proclaiming that it is the truth while all other numbers are false. Some of the numbers are more popular than others, and when asked why people chose a certain number they usually say it is because they have faith in it. In fact, most of the numbers wildly assert that one will just have to believe them based upon faith. Some may offer evidence, but this evidence is obviously not sufficient to choose any one belief because we still need faith to believe in it. If any religion had sufficient and compelling evidence like their God visiting a massive amount of people to explain who is right, then we wouldn't need faith at all. But God does not provide compelling and indisputable evidence for any one religion, so we have to choose out of the 10,000 based upon blind faith.

I ask you: is this really the appropriate way by which to judge people? Does the true God really decide to send people to hell simply because they chose the wrong God to worship?

If this scenario is true, then literally billions of people will be sent to hell simply because they were convinced that the wrong religion was true instead of the right one. For example, if Islam is right and you get sent to be tortured for eternity because you rejected their God, would you consider their God loving or just whatsoever? No, of course you wouldn't. They could say that you chose your fate by rejecting Allah and that you deserve to be tortured for being an infidel, but you would know that it wouldn't be just to torture you at all. If you maintain the notion that people deserve to go to hell for not picking Christianity because it is right, then you must also believe that it would be justified for you to go to hell if Islam is right.

I ask you to put yourself in the position of someone being sent to hell for choosing the wrong belief. So I want you to answer this question: If it is justified for God to send people to Hell for not believing in Christianity, would it also be justified for Allah to send you to Hell for not believing in him if Islam is right?

It's disturbing that Christians can so easily rationalize the torture of other people for not believing, but if they were tortured because of their non-belief in Islam they would view it as completely wrong.

2. No One Consciously Chooses Hell.

Hell can be proclaimed as the worst possible state of conscious existence. Many Christians try to argue that God does not send people to Hell, but rather it is the Non-Christian himself who chooses to go there. This argument can be completely falsified only by placing yourself within the shoes of the non-believer.

Suppose again that Islam is right. We have both heard about Islam's claim to be the perfect word of God and rejected it, full well knowing that this could mean eternal torture. In this scenario, you have been mislead by Christianity, and I have been thoroughly mislead by science. Nonetheless, we are both going to Hell.

If Islam is right, would you really say that you chose to go to Hell because you rejected Allah? All of the Christians I have ever talked to about this have said no, and I would expect that you would say the same. That's because we didn't consciously choose to be tortured, we simply weren't convinced by Islam and instead were mislead by Christianity and science. We believed in our hearts that we were right and that we would not go to Hell, and so how could that ever qualify as us choosing? This world is filled with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and various other theists who all believe that they are right; none of them choose to go to Hell.

Again, by placing yourself within the shoes of the non-believer, we can see that people don't consciously choose to go to Hell. They fully believe in their religion or their atheism, and would not be aware that their beliefs will cause them to suffer eternally. In order for someone to make a choice about anything, they must be fully conscious and aware that an action will lead to a consequence.

And furthermore, if Christianity is right then God judges people based on a choice they made while the answer was obscure and greatly difficult to ascertain. Why is it that he judges me and gives me free will during life to choose heaven or hell when the answer is so hard to uncover, but when the answer becomes clear in Hell he rejects me if I want to choose to be with him in heaven? Does someone's choice of religion during life somehow outweigh their free will and choice to want to be with God when they are in Hell?

For example: a man is in hell, and after 3 million years of suffering he looks up and pleads with God to let him be with God or die. Is God going to deny him this request based on a choice he made 3 million years ago during his life when the answer was unclear? If people truly choose to be in hell, then none of them would want to go out. But we can all come to a consensus that no one would want to be in Hell, and if anyone is in Hell then they are most likely begging God to let them out or let them die.

Ultimately, if Hell exists then people are sent there based upon a choice they made when the answer was unclear, and they are denied their requests to die or go to heaven when they are being inhumanely tortured. How anyone can rationalize that this is justified is completely beyond me.

3. No one deserves to go to hell for eternity.

When I say this, I mean absolutely no one; not Hitler, not Pol Pot , not Stalin. Now, it's important to understand that I believe Hitler should be punished for his crimes. I just don't believe he should be punished forever.

If I could, I would make Hitler live through all of the millions of lives that he directly and indirectly caused suffering to. He would have to live through and die in the holocaust millions of times, watch his Jewish friends and family tortured and starving, and also have to live through and die in war millions upon millions of times. The reason why I would do this is so that he would learn a lesson about all of the suffering he caused, and so that he could build empathy and become a better person. But the point of this is clear: this punishment serves to teach him a lesson and better him as a person so that he may able to rejoin society and receive justice for his crimes.

However, I would not even think about sentencing him to be tortured for all of eternity. Any finite suffering one could ever cause on Earth would be infinitesimally small compared to the suffering and torture one would endure in Hell. Everlasting torture and punishment does not better the person, teach them a lesson, nor does it reform their ways. Everlasting torture serves no other purpose but to punish the person. And since the suffering they would endure is infinitely more than suffering they could ever cause, it is only there to satisfy God and with this twisted sense of justice. There is absolutely no reason for people to be tortured forever other than to satisfy God. One could say that Hell separates evil people from the good, but God could easily do that by annihilating their existence. Plus, your fate in Hell or Heaven is not decided by how good you are. Instead it is only decided by whether you accept Jesus or not.

In fact, Hell is infinitely worse than the holocaust because it literally never ends. But just like the Holocaust, Jews are sent to hell based on the fact that they are Jewish. How could you say that the holocaust is unjustified when your own God sends people to an infinitely worse place for being Jewish as well? You'll find that Jews in the holocaust and Jews in Hell have a very important thing in common: they both are being tortured simply because they are Jewish.

God created Hell, God sends people to Hell because of their beliefs, God refuses to let people out of Hell once they are there, and God watches and knows everything that goes on in Hell with the complete power to end these people's pointless suffering. There is no justice with Hell, there is no lesson learned, and most importantly of all there is no one who deserves it.

I simply ask Christians to have some empathy and compassion for non-believers and realize that no one could ever deserve to be tortured for eternity, especially based upon their beliefs. I await your arguments and rebuttal.
daley

Con

My opponent, by claiming that wading through the lottery of religions makes unbelief in Christianity justified, has underestimated the work of the Holy Spirit and the power of an omnipotent God. Jesus said, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." (John 6:44) The Father does not draw men primarily by the preaching of Christians, but by the witness of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Those who reject this witness have already received ample evidence of where the truth lies and are thus not justified in rejecting the truth. However, God does not need to draw every person in the world to him for being omniscient, he knows those who would obey him out of love for who he is, and these he draws. So knowing those whose hearts would reject him anyway justifies God in not going to the extremes my opponent suggests he should go to to prove himself, like appearing in the sky to the whole world and say "I am God." In fact, Pro only assumes without proof this would convince everyone. Many scientists would think it was an alien being, and ask how they could trust what it says. Others would become theists, but that doesn't show they would exercise faith in him and love him.

God didn't want mindless robots, so he gave us free will; but Pro seems to think that God can MAKE people FREELY love him. This is a logical contradiction. Even if people only obeyed God out of fear of going to hell, that wouldn't mean they loved him in their hearts for who he is. And if people only obey God for the rewards, or to escape punishment, their worship will still be meaningless in his eyes. You don't want your children to pretend that thy love you, do you?

So yes, no one freely chooses hell, but people freely choose not to love God and his ways. Some people prefer to cheat on their wives than to be faithful. Some people prefer to steal than to work hard for a living. So just believing in the right God is not enough to keep a relationship with him strong and get to heaven, one must love to do what is right and hate what is bad. I even find it odd that an atheist should argue that hell is immoral, because if God didn't exist there would be no immorality or morality, for human opinions of right and wrong would only the accidental spin-offs of socio-biological evolution, and I have no reason to think that a morality developed by animals ought to be correct. Morality without God would not be objective, so that you could justly condemn anyone. Love, justice, and compassion would only be aids to survival, but any deeper meaning would be illusory in a universe devoid of purpose or meaning. When an atheist says "love your neighbor as yourself," he thinks he is referring to some standard above and beyond himself, but in doing so he holds to the Christian view that there is some transcendent lawmaker beyond human opinion. A sense that what is just and fair isn't decided by majority vote. I would ask Pro what is his basis for justice in a world without God?

But he also argues that it isn't fair to torture someone in hell for a limited lifetime of sin, but that fails to understand the nature of hell. In the lake of fire, people are not only being tortured for sins in this life, but for sins they continue to commit after death, as they continue to hate God in their hearts for what he has done to them. The rich man in Luke 16:19-31 didn't repent, even though he was begging for mercy. And even if he did repent, he would not be doing so out of a sense of guilt for his wrong, or his love of God, but simply to avoid torture. This is no reason for mercy! I wonder how Pro knows that anyone genuinely converts after being in the lake of fire? If they couldn't appreciate the love of God in this life to move them into worship, what makes you think they will see God's love in hellfire?

But again, Pro argues in a circle. His whole argument boils down to this: God is wrong because hell doesn't seem fair to me. This begs the question: what makes Pro think that objective morality, that is, standards that are binding on all of us rather we choose to believe in them or not, should be decided by him? How is it that his human view of what is right ought to trump God's? Just because he doesn't agree with God's reasoning, how does that make him right? Even if no human thinks God is fair, how does that make them right? Since when was truth, or better yet, justice , decided by majority vote? And by majority vote of lower beings at that? If God exists, it stands to reason even on common sense grounds that he would know better than us what is just, and he would also have the right to make the rules. So the only way to show that any human ideas of morality trump God's view of morality is to assume for the purposes of this debate that God doesn't exist. But not only is that an assumption without proof, its not even on the topic of this debate!

Pro asked me is the Muslim God Allah sent me to hell for not believing Islam if it would be fair. Well, if Allah is the true God, and if I would have been willing to love him for who he is, he would have reached me in the same way the Holy Spirit reached me, giving me enough evidence to choose him if I so desired. If then I rejected him, he would be within his rights to burn me in hell forever.

But let me also say something also on this matter of people going to hell because they didn't accept the right God. For while God has rules, got isn't an unreasonable tyrant. They are exceptions to rules. For example, Paul says that people who did not receive the law which the Jews had received at Sinai, the Gentiles, were still given the faculty of conscience, and God would basically judge them on the basis of the extent to which they were willing to follow the little truth they did know. (Romans 2:11-16) I am saying this to suggest, that babies who died in childbirth, or folks who suffered from mental illness and so forth will not be sent to hell just because they didn't believe. God knows if they "would have" believed were they in a position to hear the good news, and he also has the option of judging them on the basis of how they lived their lives. Its not all as black and white as you make it seem, and that is why most genuine Christians would not point fingers and say "he or she won't be saves" because Jesus is the judge, not them.

Furthermore, while I believe people will experience being in literal fire in that lake of fire, scripture doesn't say they will "burn" forever, only that they will forever be that place which has fire burning. There may be occasions when they will not be in fire. In fact, Jesus taught here will be different degrees of punishment in hell, or gehenna (the lake of fire). He said it will be more endurable for some than for others. (Luke 10:12-14) The real anguish, even more so than the fire in that place, will be to experience forever total separation from God.

So yes, no one consciously chooses to be in a place like hell, but the y do choose in this life to separate themselves from God, even though they may believe in him. Look how many people will tell you they believe fornication is wrong, yet they still do it. So the problem here isn't belief, its the heart condition. Those whose hearts would be acceptable to God, I have to reason to think he would not reach them effectively, and for you to say that he hasn't just because many people have not accepted him seems to imply your belief that you know for sure they would love and serve him if they were convinced the Bible was true. How could you know this?

I have a Muslim friend who told me that even if the Bible was true he would not serve God, because any God who torture his own Son on a cross doesn't deserve worship. No God who accepts human sacrifice doesn't deserve his love. Yet he has no problem with all the lives that have been sacrificed in Islam's jihad's over the years! The very act that God used as the greatest expression of his love, sacrificing himself for us, taking on our suffering, he rejects. You, a mere human are in no position to say that God isn't fair when punishing people in hell. For his thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and his ways, higher than your ways.
Debate Round No. 2
MailboxVegetable

Pro

Thank you, Daley. I will try to address as many points you made within the 10,000 character max.

"However, God does not need to draw every person in the world to him for being omniscient, he knows those who would obey him out of love for who he is, and these he draws. So knowing those whose hearts would reject him anyway justifies God in not going to the extremes my opponent suggests he should go to to prove himself, like appearing in the sky to the whole world and say "I am God." In fact, Pro only assumes without proof this would convince everyone."

Con has suggested that God does not give extremely compelling evidence to people (like appearing in front of them for a conversation) because God knows that they would reject him anyway. He suggests that everyone who goes to Hell is only there because God didn't seek them, which in turn is because these people would supposedly never love him under any circumstance. But you cannot deny that if God were to appear to everyone in the world and talk to them, the percentage of Christians would skyrocket to a huge majority of the world. Sure, there would still be that 1 or 2 percent of people who would deny such compelling evidence, but approximately 98 percent or more would not even question the existence of God if he would only appear to them. You don't see many people questioning whether or not their friends exist because people directly see them and have conversations for good amounts of time. You will find that it would be the most logical choice for God to appear and put an end to this pointless lottery of religions. If he only were to talk to us, the Christian population would skyrocket until there were only a few doubters left. But the only reason God doesn't give compelling and indisputable evidence is because he is either illogical, doesn't care about the souls he will save if he simply talks to them, or isn't real in the first place. I believe in the latter.

"And if people only obey God for the rewards, or to escape punishment, their worship will still be meaningless in his eyes. You don't want your children to pretend that they love you, do you?"

Let's explore this a little deeper and compare God's relationship with us to a Father's relationship with his child. So for this analogy, I am a Father who has a son. I leave my son in a house with a number of my other children who are all scrambling to find out which version of Daddy is the right one. When they grow up to leave the house for me to judge them, I judge them based upon which version of me they chose to worship. I don't really judge them based upon whether my offspring behaved morally or raped or killed anyone, but instead I judge them based upon whether they love the correct version of me. If they love the correct version of me, every sin is forgiven. When I find that they have chosen the right book and the right version, they get to come to a party for the rest of their lives. When I find that they chose the wrong book and the wrong version to worship and love, I put them in the oven and cook them for the rest of their lives. I don't kill them. I don't forgive them for an understandable mistake. And I don't ever let them die to leave their torment. In fact, I specifically created that oven so that my children will never die while they are burning alive. I don't let them out of this oven ever, because any attempt for the children to redeem themselves is just an attempt to avoid torture.

Any sane human being would say that in this situation, the father is a sick sadistic human being who is in no way morally perfect. So why do we believe differently about God? I don't understand how simply not loving him could ever logically or morally warrant being tortured for the rest of time. The only person who deserves torture in this scenario is the father who tortured his children himself. It doesn't matter whether the father claims to be morally perfect or not; Torturing someone for not loving you is one of the most arbitrary, cruel, and repulsively immoral acts one could ever do to a person. There is no reason that a supposedly morally perfect being would ever decide to torture anyone for eternity much less for an insignificant thing like someone not loving the being.

"I even find it odd that an atheist should argue that hell is immoral, because if God didn't exist there would be no immorality or morality, for human opinions of right and wrong would only the accidental spin-offs of socio-biological evolution, and I have no reason to think that a morality developed by animals ought to be correct. Morality without God would not be objective, so that you could justly condemn anyone."

Does God prefer his moral values because they are objectively good, or are those moral values simply good because he prefers them? If he prefers his moral values because they are objectively good, then morality exists independent of God. This means that objective moral values exist whether or not God exists. If you instead believe that moral values are good simply because God prefers them, then you are subscribing to Divine Command Theory and falsely equating power with morality. Just because God has omnipotence does not mean in any sense that what he does is good. Might does not make right. To even suggest that power and authority dictate morality is to say that morality is flexible and only determined by whoever has power. If God preferred torturing babies rather than comforting them, then that would be good according to Divine Command Theory. DCT is completely wrong because morality is not determined by authority. If objective morality does exist, then it exists with its logical reasons independently of God. My basis for justice in a world without God is a mixture of logic and consideration for suffering. In order to have the right kind of morality, a person must be completely logical and most take into account the suffering of people. Viewing morality this way, one can logically come to the conclusion that torturing someone for the rest of time does not better the person, does not teach them a lesson, and goes way beyond what retribution they would ever deserve. The only logical reason for a man to torture someone for eternity would be to satisfy his own sadism. This renders God either sadistic or illogical.

"But he also argues that it isn't fair to torture someone in hell for a limited lifetime of sin, but that fails to understand the nature of hell. In the lake of fire, people are not only being tortured for sins in this life, but for sins they continue to commit after death, as they continue to hate God in their hearts for what he has done to them."

My opponent has just argued that it is immoral for you to hate God for torturing you. He also suggests that people are continually tortured in Hell because they hate God for torturing them, which then brings more torture upon them and in turn makes them hate God more. That is one of the most morally repugnant statements I have ever heard someone say in defense of Christianity. He asserts that not only does God torture people for not loving the correct version of him in life, but he continues to torture them because they hate him for torturing them! This shows the irrational and immoral thought process that leads people to believe Hell is justified. Because my opponent thinks that God is morally perfect, he must rationalize and justify the doctrine of Hell which is inherently immoral. This creates cognitive dissonance and leads him to think that God torturing someone for eternity is somehow justified and morally acceptable. In reality, torturing someone for an infinite amount of time for simply not loving you should be seen as a morally atrocious act.

"You, a mere human are in no position to say that God isn't fair when punishing people in hell. For his thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and his ways, higher than your ways."

Con finishes here with an argument from authority. He basically says that I am wrong because God is perfect and omniscient, therefore everything he does is justified. This authoritarian view of morality asserts that whenever someone"s personal logic contradicts the authority, their logic is wrong instead of the authority in question. Authoritarian morality has been used by countless people throughout time to justify their God's seemingly immoral and irrational decisions.

For example: I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as my God. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very fond of killing and torturing babies. But this is not immoral, and we should not question the Flying Spaghetti Monster because he is morally perfect and omniscient. Since he is morally perfect and omniscient, he is in a better position to decide whether or not killing and torturing babies wrong. Any mere human who questions this is wrong because the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ways are mysterious and higher than our ways.

The reasoning in that example has justified a dehumanizing and disgusting act by simply asserting without evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient and morally perfect. Con has asserted no evidence for the idea that his God is omniscient or perfect, but still asserts that no one can question his God because of this. This is merely an attempt to end the debate by appeals to authority, so this argument and any arguments appealing to authority should be considered invalid in any debate.

Hopefully, I have shown in my responses everything that is wrong with Hell. Torturing someone for all of eternity makes the person act even worse, makes them suffer infinitely for finite crimes, and most importantly only serves to satisfy God. God could easily annihilate the people's tortured existence, or even forgive them and give them a chance at redemption. But instead, he purposely makes it so that they will live the rest of their immortal existence in agony and fear. I am running out of characters, so I'm sorry that I couldn't address everything.
daley

Con

Pro thinks that if God appeared to all mankind that 98% of them would become Christians. They would become theists, but that doesn"t show they will become Christians. Believing that God exist doesn"t make you a Christian, and believing that the Bible is true doesn"t give you a relationship with him. Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and the nation still rejected him. And likewise today Christian organizations feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless and still their message is not lived out by most people receiving their care. A magnificent appearance of God in the sky won"t stop people from preferring a sinful life. Even angels in the presence of God turned against him, what then about us? To illustrate my point, look at how many professed Christians you know who don"t practice what they preach. Even people who believe the Bible still choose to rebel against God, and they are not a few, they are many. So even if God proves he exists to the whole world, that doesn"t show the world will chose willingly to obey him out of love. Even if they obeyed him, it will most likely be out of fear of punishment. This isn"t the kind of worship God wants.. Like those who prefer sex outside of marriage. So no, God"s appearance won"t make the world into genuine Christians, not from the heart. It won"t make them love his way above what their sinful flesh desires. Many men will prefer to look at a naked woman than God"s glorious appearing.

In Pro"s illustration of Daddy and his kids, he leaves out the part where after the ones who are saved because they accept the right version of Daddy are informed that now that they have a clean slate, they cannot practice rape, murder and so on again, or they too will burn. So Christians don"t get to heaven only on the basis of believing in the right God, but on how they live up to his standards afterwards. They must right the wrongs they have done as much as they are able, and if they killed someone, they must willingly turn themselves into the authorities to serve the time for their crimes. Christians must own up to what they did. And as for what Pro calls "an understandable mistake," I wonder, do you think that rejecting your claim that hell is unjust is an "understandable mistake" on my part? I doubt you do, because you made the information available to me. And God has made the information about himself available to the whole world not just in the Bible, but by sending missionaries, using TV broadcasts, the internet, tracts, and even visions and dreams, and conscience. God can speak directly to anyone, but he doesn"t force people to love him. Most people have no excuse. It"s not like they have not heard. And Muslims, for example, have heard the criticisms of their religion and choose to turn a blind eye. No, its not a mistake for most of us, it"s a choice; just like when most religious people choose to reject evolution, it isn"t because they don"t know what evidence you have for it; its because they don"t like it. People who don"t want to have to live like a Christian won"t accept it even if it"s true. This comes down to love of truth versus love of darkness.

Now Pro claims torturing someone for not loving you is immoral. How do you decide what is moral and what is not? This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Because you don"t like it, then it"s wrong. You make your own feelings the measure of justice and truth. But if God attaches greater importance to loving him than he does to your personal happiness, what is it that makes him wrong for doing so?

I am sure you know that moral values do not exist outside of consciousness. If all humans and animals vanish off the earth, and a rock falls and kills a mouse, is it evil? Where is morality? But because we can think, we can experience a realm of moral values, and the question arises: where do these moral values we apprehend come from? Well, it is only because an eternal being (God) has always existed, that such moral values exist, and God prefers these values because they are part of his very nature. It is because God is loving that love is objectively good, it is because God is just that justice is objectively good. And these moral values were not invented by God; so God didn"t arbitrarily decide to make any action morally right or wrong. Rather, lying, for example, was always morally wrong, and God didn"t decide to make it wrong, he merely revealed it was wrong. This standard cannot exist independent of God as Pro suggests, because it is only wrong because God"s character is truth, the opposite of lies. So God"s character itself is the standard for all moral behavior.

So again I see Pro falling on his own sword. If hell is immoral, than objective moral values exist. But if they exist, their source must transcend mere human opinion, for human opinion is relative. Just as humans disagreed on whether slavery was right, so my opponent and I disagree on if hell is right. If there is a supernatural source of moral values, it gives that being the final say on what is right and wrong, and if this being, God, says that hell is part of his justice, who then are we to disagree? To disagree is to create another source of morality, and I dare Pro to tell us what it is. For I don"t see any morality being an accidental byproduct of evolution, as being anything more than subjective opinions.

Pro argues that logic and consideration for suffering is the basis for morality. Well, its logical for a minority to suffer for the benefit of the majority, so using logic would very well justify any mistreatment of minority groups to benefit majorities. Its logical to pull the plug on the sick who are taking up valuable resources that can be better utilized by the healthy. Logic was used to justify eugenics, slavery, and all kinds of suffering. Its logical to force five young girls into pornography because the millions gained from he hundreds of thousand of perverts who will buy the videos, will go to provide free medical aid to thousands of sick patients. Sacrifice of the few to benefit the many is logical. Does logic make it fair? Logic can tell you if suffering was necessary, but not if it is just. What seems logical to one person, doesn"t seem logical to others, so in cases like this, how can logic be a decided of truth, let alone justice? Millions of people think it is illogical to believe that life spontaneously appeared out of non-living material, some like yourself believe in abiogenesis. How do you decide whose logic is the right one? Do you count hands? Then we are back to deciding truth and morality by majority vote. So again, I challenge Pro to try it again, and tell us how he even gets morality without God. He cannot! He knows he cannot! Yet wants to accuse God of being immoral when sending people to hell as if his opinion was an objective determiner of truth. Pro, could it be that we humans are so emotionally incensed at human suffering that we are unable to objectively condemn hellfire? We seem to have no problem with the suffering we do to animals when he kill our livestock, or experiment with animals in the lab. We justify it by saying it serves a purpose, but if God has an even greater purpose for sending people to hell, what makes you think you would be privy to those reasons? How do you know, that a being with infinitely more wisdom and knowledge than you, could not have reasons unknown to you, why he created hell in the first place? How can a speck of dust in this vast universe argue with God as if we comprehend his outworking of the bigger picture. Honestly, as an ant cannot see the big picture from our point of view, I think we can only graze the surface of God"s reasons, for he is far more than us than we are over the ants.

Pro said: "The only logical reason for a man to torture someone for eternity would be to satisfy his own sadism." I wonder if rats in the lab are saying a similar thing to themselves when poked with instruments. The difference between God and us is bigger than the difference between us and rats; so how does he know we would even comprehend all of God"s reasons or be privy to them? Who are we to argue with God?

Pro argues with my authoritarian view of morality, but unlike human dictators who could be wrong because they don"t know everything and are not the very source of moral values, God himself couldn"t be wrong because he does know everything and is the source of moral values. So if God, the very source of morality, was ever wrong, then how can Pro or anybody else ever be right? On logic? Whose logic? How is Pro"s logic any better than God"s? The same atheists who have made these arguments on how immoral hell is were equally involved, side by side with religious fanatics, buying and selling slaves during 400 years of African slavery! They themselves change in their human opinions, and what is considered right today by them, will not be considered right years from now as they continue to change as they always have.

Pro argues that I asserted without evidence that God is omniscient and morally perfect, but that is part of the very definition of God; any being who isn"t omniscient and morally perfect can"t be God. What"s more, if he demands that I prove God has these qualities, would that not be a subject for a different debate? Pro, are we debating the morality of hell on the assumption that God exists, or are we debating the morality of hell AND the question of whether or not God exists? If you wanted a debate on the existence of God, you should have said so.

When sin separates someone from God, God suffers the pain of losing that one forever. They too, will experience pain forever. Sin has eternal consequences either way.
Debate Round No. 3
MailboxVegetable

Pro

"Pro argues that I asserted without evidence that God is omniscient and morally perfect, but that is part of the very definition of God; any being who isn't omniscient and morally perfect can"t be God. What"s more, if he demands that I prove God has these qualities, would that not be a subject for a different debate? Pro, are we debating the morality of hell on the assumption that God exists, or are we debating the morality of hell AND the question of whether or not God exists?"

A major point I have been trying to make in this debate is that not only is Hell immoral and unjust, but it is also completely incompatible with a loving and just God. Nowhere in this debate did I make the assumption that God is morally perfect and simultaneously chooses to send people to hell. I wouldn't even attempt to argue for my side if we had assumed that. It would be a non-sequitur for me to argue that God is morally perfect and sends people to Hell, and that Hell is immoral. Rather I have attempted to prove that if there is a morally perfect and omniscient God, he wouldn't do something as irrational and immoral as torturing a person forever for not loving him. Instead of addressing the substance of my arguments, Con has repeatedly appealed to authority and said that I am only a mere human who cannot question God. So I state again: any and all arguments from authority should be considered invalid in this debate. If you appeal to authority again, Con, I can only assume that it is an attempt to sidestep providing logical and moral reasons for why Hell is just.

"Now Pro claims torturing someone for not loving you is immoral. How do you decide what is moral and what is not? This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Because you don"t like it, then it"s wrong. You make your own feelings the measure of justice and truth. But if God attaches greater importance to loving him than he does to your personal happiness, what is it that makes him wrong for doing so?"

Any emotional arguments I have employed have been attempts to appeal to empathy and compassion, things that I think are essential components in moral decisions. But just like empathy and compassion, proper use of logic is also essential to arriving at the right conclusion that will reduce suffering. So, I will examine the ways in which Hell is illogical.

The purpose of punishment is usually to reform the criminal"s behavior so that they will not commit the crime again. The punishment must not be too soft nor severe, or else the criminal will slip back into negative behaviors and continue to commit crimes and supposed sins against God. Con has freely admitted that when people are in Hell, they come to despise God for what he"s done to them. This in turn makes it so that they are much more sinful than they were before, constantly cursing God for torturing them without end. If Hell is really God"s plan to eliminate sin, then he is an absurdly incompetent deity. God could actually eliminate sin by annihilating their existence or forgiving them, but instead he chooses to perpetuate sin in this way. In this way, we can see that Hell neither teaches the victim a lesson nor rehabilitates their behavior.

So what logical reason could God possibly have for torturing people for all of eternity? Hell doesn't teach people a lesson, doesn't reform their behavior, doesn't stop them from sinning, and most importantly inhumanely tortures the victim for all of eternity. The only logical reasons for God to torture them would be to inflict retribution or to satisfy his own sadism. But you cannot logically justify the idea that never ending torture is fair retribution for choosing the wrong God to worship. The only victim in the "crime" of choosing the wrong God would be God. Do you really think he would be so vindictive and hateful to torture the person rather than forgive them for making a mistake? The one and only reason for why God would logically choose to torture someone forever for not loving him would be to satisfy his own vengeful sadism. Since sadism is not compatible with a morally perfect God, we can conclude that God would never choose to torture anyone eternally.

"Pro thinks that if God appeared to all mankind that 98% of them would become Christians. They would become theists, but that doesn't show they will become Christians."

Okay, let"s say that the number of people who become real Christians doesn't actually jump up to 98 percent. If just one single person were to become a real Christian because of God revealing himself, wouldn't that be a success? But I think that we can assume that a massive amount of people would become real Christians if God were to give compelling and conclusive evidence. So why doesn't he? Why doesn't he give conclusive evidence to non-believers who are searching through this lottery of 10,000 religions? It"s just simply illogical to base people"s eternal fates on a bet they made in a lottery.

"I wonder, do you think that rejecting your claim that hell is unjust is an "understandable mistake" on my part? I doubt you do, because you made the information available to me. And God has made the information about himself available to the whole world not just in the Bible, but by sending missionaries, using TV broadcasts, the internet, tracts, and even visions and dreams, and conscience."

Rejecting the claim that Hell is unjust is an understandable mistake in the sense that you do not deserve to be tortured eternally for it. Much like believing that Hell is moral does not warrant you to be tortured eternally, choosing the wrong version of God to believe does not warrant eternal torture either. Just because I made the information available to you does not mean that I get to torture you for being wrong.

"where do these moral values we apprehend come from? Well, it is only because an eternal being (God) has always existed, that such moral values exist, and God prefers these values because they are part of his very nature. It is because God is loving that love is objectively good, it is because God is just that justice is objectively good. And these moral values were not invented by God; so God didn"t arbitrarily decide to make any action morally right or wrong."

Logic and empathy is and always has been the source of morality. Even if there is a God, then he prefers certain moral values because of logic and empathy. You have said that God does not arbitrarily choose what is right and wrong, so I assume he must use logic and empathy to arrive at the right moral conclusion. I've said it before and I will say it again: might does not make right. If you assert that the only way we can have objective morality anywhere is by having an omnipotent deity, then you are again falsely equating power with morality. Why would it logically follow that a universe without God has no morality? Would the presence of an omnipotent deity somehow make morality objective and valid? If you think that morality comes from authority, the only reason why people should logically behave morally would be out of threat of punishment and bribe of reward. If the collective mass"s goal is to keep suffering to a minimal level, then there is always a right and objective answer to moral questions. The presence of a deity doesn't change that. And furthermore, Hell is a definitive case of injustice that tortures people without end for making the wrong bet.

And just because many people have been wrong about morality throughout history does not mean that humans can"t come to the right conclusion. We have been wrong about so many different scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that we will never arrive at a correct scientific theory. It only means that the problem is complex and difficult. Occasionally, we get the right answer to these difficult problems. Just like science, there is a correct moral decision in every case that will offer the least amount of suffering to parties involved. Moral decisions are difficult, but the right decision exists independent of human opinion and God. If one has no empathy however, then there would be no logical reason for them to reduce the suffering of other"s except for their own benefit. Morality stems off of suffering and empathy.

"How do you know, that a being with infinitely more wisdom and knowledge than you, could not have reasons unknown to you, why he created hell in the first place? How can a speck of dust in this vast universe argue with God as if we comprehend his outworking of the bigger picture."

Con"s argument here is basically saying God has a reason; it"s just hidden from us! Instead of providing any actual reasons for why people should be tortured, Con has asserted many times that we just have to trust God even though he doesn't give us reasons. I hope I don"t have to explain why this is absurd.

In conclusion:
Hell is unjust and immoral because it tortures people for eternity based on a bet they made in the lottery of religions when the answer was unclear and obscure. It is also an irrational punishment that would undoubtedly make the victim more sinful, psychotic, and hateful towards God. There is no logical reason for why God would do this except to satisfy his own sadistic and evil desires to torture people. God could offer them some way of redemption, but instead he chooses to confine people to an infinitely harsh punishment. Unfortunately, the only reason I have learned of why Con believes in this is because he asserts that God is morally perfect and chooses to send people to Hell, so sending people to Hell must be a moral action. If Con cannot present any reasons for why this should happen that doesn't reference God's authority and moral perfection, then I must assume that he has no reason outside of that. So Con, provide objective and logical reasons for why Hell is a fair punishment for people choosing the wrong religion. And please, don't appeal to authority. Thanks to all who have read this, and thank you to Con.
daley

Con

Pro believes that "The purpose of punishment is usually to reform the criminal"s behavior so that they will not commit the crime again." This is not true. That"s the purpose of a rehab program, not the punishment. When a judge sentences a person death, how does this punishment reform the person? When a person receives life in prison, what use is reformation to him when he will never re-enter society? Locking up a person by itself doesn"t reform anybody, unless a program of teaching is put in place to help the person see a better way of living. Pro is confusing discipline with punishment. Punishment is there simply to give the sinner what they deserve for what they have done, to satisfy the requirements of justice. So hell"s inability to reform doesn"t make it unjust.

Pro argues that hell has no room for empathy or compassion, so does a lifetime prison sentence have any room for these qualities? What shows Pro is wrong, is the fact that there are different degrees of punishment in hell. (Luke 10:12-14) Some will experience a part of hell known as "the outer darkness." (Matthew 8:12) I have argued that there will actually be more relief from the fires of hell for some than for others, how is that not compassion? But Pro"s problem with hell is that it lasts forever. But I never said that people who go to hell couldn"t be freed from this place if they didn"t repent. They are the ones who choose to hate God and continue to reject him. Maybe Pro imagines that in hell, they are chained to wall, unable to move, but that"s not necessarily the case. They may very well be able to move around to continue their evil deeds. Lucifer in Isaiah 14 was met by others in hell who came to meet him and speak to him, so who knows what other sins they continue to commit in hell. Pro is just ignorant of Christian doctrine concerning hell.

I never argued that the purpose of hell is to eliminate sin; that was Pro"s idea. Pro argued that many people can"t find God because of the lottery of religions, to which I replied that if God exists, he would know who would accept him and would be able to reach them with sufficient evidence " it"s only logical. Furthermore, I said there are exceptions to every rule. God can judge the unreached on the basis of what they did with the little truth they knew based on conscience or even nature. (Rom 1:20; 2:7, 14-15) To this Pro claimed that by preaching Christianity God then seals the fate of people who reject that message to hellfire. He prefers God keep all in ignorance by not preaching about himself so he can save more of them. But if a loving God exists who wants a relationship with us it"s only logical that he will try to educate us about himself and his ways, and won"t leave us to ourselves. What kind of father hides himself from his children? Pro is the one who wants God to show himself. If God exists, living by his ways would be the most beneficial way of living. To deprive us of that knowledge on behalf of those whose hearts would have rejected it is absurd in the extreme, and to bring people who don"t love God or his ways into heaven contradicts the very definition of God as being a morally perfect being. So while Pro argues that a morally perfect God would not send people to hell, he believes that a morally perfect God would fill his presence with sin by rewarding evil people with heaven. If wicked people are going to heaven, why bother to live holy lives? It all ends up the same, so lets rape, steal and kill.

My rational for hell being eternal involves the eternality of God"s qualities. It seems to me that for any being to be God, he cannot be limited. He must be eternal in his attributes, for example eternal in power, no end to his wisdom, no end to his love, etc. But if the depth of God"s love for what is good is eternal, so that he rewards the righteous with eternal bliss in heaven, it seems logical and necessary that his hatred of evil, of sin, must also be eternal, and must be reflected in whatever punishment he inflicts on the guilty. So eternal retribution would be in harmony with divine justice, but since we are finite beings we may not comprehend just how much God hates, anymore than we comprehend just how deep he loves. When God hurts, he hurts infinitely more than we do. So sins against God deserve infinite punishment. Add to this the fact that they continue to sin in hell, and I can see why God would punish them forever.

Now Pro claims that at least one person would become a real Christian if God revealed himself and that would be worth it. Pro seems to be an expert on what"s in people"s hearts, so let me do an experiment with his. So, you are an atheist, and let"s say you think there is nothing wrong with fornication, homosexuality, and you believe in evolution; but given enough evidence you would believe in God"s existence. God appears to you and then you believe he exists, then what? Do you suddenly abhor fornication, homosexuality and evolution? No. You"re heart condition and beliefs have not change! So you ask God to give you reasons why he says these things are wrong. He says sex is primarily for reproduction to create a new family, and I desire families to be made only in the context of marriage. Homosexuality is unnatural, that"s not what I made you for, and I created mankind, they didn"t evolve. In reply, you say to God, but when I have sex outside of marriage with a consenting adult, and I use protection, I"m not hurting anyone; and I could say the same thing about homosexuals, and I actually have good evidence for evolution, so why should I take your word against all the science I know? All the world"s scientists can"t be wrong, could they? "They are," God said, and you rejected him. Either because you think he is a liar, or, more likely, you simply don"t agree with him. You see, you must understand they are millions of people who will never prefer God"s ways over their own. Just believing in God"s existence won"t make anyone a Christian, nor will it stop people from putting other things at the centre of their lives, which amounts to worshipping other gods anyway " gods of sex, money, and fame. If God himself came down on a cloud and told you to accept his authority to make the rules, and even told you that as your Creator he doesn"t owe you an explanation, you are the one who owes him an explanation for why you didn"t live up to his requirements, would you humble yourself to him? Honestly, I personally believe that if God appears in US Air Space unannounced the government would send fighter jets to shoot him down.

Further, Pro keeps talking about an "unintentional mistake," but a mistake is something accidental, it"s not a well informed choice. Most people who reject God have been informed about him and choose not to believe.

Pro says that God must "use logic and empathy to arrive at the right moral conclusion," but I don"t believe God uses the same KIND OF LOGIC Pro uses, because just like I use logic which disagrees with Pro, God can use logic which also disagrees with Pro. I have shown examples of how logic has been used to justify behavior Pro calls immoral, so logic does not produce empathy. The logic used in court in favor of keeping the blacks in slavery in America was that the money they would need to compensate the slave owners would break the treasury. Here was a logical argument, was it empathetic? Further again, God doesn"t decide morality based on logic, but on his own character. Whatever his character is, that sets the standard for morality. So if God was evil, we would have a different set of morals from if he was loving. So my argument is that to know the kind of morals God would imbue in this world, would require knowing what kind of God he is to begin with.

If there was no God, we would not have evolved morality, period. How do I know? Because there is no morality in the animal kingdom. When a lion eats a zebra, he does not murder her, he eats her. When a male white shark forcibly copulates with a female shark, it isn"t rape, its just doing what comes naturally to him. So I have no reason to think that animals would evolve a sense of faithfulness in marriage, when multiple partners takes presence during mating season for most species. I wouldn"t expect anyone to care about cruelty to animals, because in the animal kingdom no species cares about the wellbeing of a different species. If, as atheistic scientists claim homosexuality is natural among animals, there would be no natural reason for this taboo against gay acts to arise.

Justice and morality cannot be decided by logic, because many logical reasons have been given against the death penalty, such as the fact that sometimes innocent people are convicted, and when their case is reviewed and they are found innocent, they can't benefit if they are dead. However, logical reasons have been for the death penalty, such as taking away the victims right to live demands an equal punishment on the killer, which is death - only one life for another can balance the scales of justice. The punishment fits the crime. Both claims are logical, but only one decision can be morality, and just! One could aim to reduce suffering by rejecting the death penalty so the criminal doesn't suffer the pain of death, but others could argue that being locked away with other criminals is lots of pain too. Horrible things happen to people in prison. Some would prefer death than go to jail. So logic, reducing suffering, all of it is no way to make moral decisions. Something which transcends human opinion is the source of morality, God's character. I close my case.
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MailboxVegetable 2 years ago
MailboxVegetable
@RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
Why did you say that you withdraw your vote, and then subsequently change your vote to award Con all 7 points without an RFD? Completely contradictory.
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
*****I withdraw my vote, I will no longer be voting as it just causes to much drama.*****
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial, please correct your vote. First of all if neither side used that bible quote, what does it have to do with this debate? Someone can be quite right, and by not bringing up such evidence lose the debate. Plus what is this "better conduct" and why does "more arguments" become meaningful if you cannot state any quality within them? Finally as you are the only person who thinks pro had terrible spelling please cite examples.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@dsjpk5, if you are not intentionally fluffing a vote (pretty sure there's something against that in the bible), please point to where con proved pro's source so unreliable that it flipped sources to be in his favor? Or if it's for the merit of pro's sources, please explain how they were not rule violations.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Hell and immorality had nothing to do with Christianity, it is the Old Testament that defined the immoral character of God and Hell, Jesus did little to destroy that God that pre-existed Christianity.

Jesus preached the Buddhist/Confucian teachings of Love Your Enemy.
BTW: Buddha and Confucius taught this over 400 years before Jesus, so Jesus likely borrowed them.

Yet, God refused to love his enemies and continued to throw them into lakes of fire (Hell)
So, regardless of Jesus's teachings, God ignored them.
Because Jesus appeared Moral, doesn't mean that God was Moral.
In Revelations, God and Hell are still demonstrably Immoral.
Arguing about Christianity is non-sequitur.
It is the Old Testament and throwing enemies into Hell instead of loving them is the issue.
Posted by daley 2 years ago
daley
Pro opened with 3 points, and I responded to all three. He said people don't choose hell, did I not reply to this? Did I not admit that they don't choose to be in this place consciously, but they do choose to reject God and his ways? And I even made an argument to show they are not justified in doing so, and just as all your information is available to me, so is information about Christianity available to people who are non-Christian.

Pro argued its unfair to punish people forever for a limited lifetime of sin, and I replied with the argument that they are punished for an eternity of sin as they continue to hate God in their hearts. Pro couldn't prove that anyone would convert for pure motives after being in hell, so he left us with the idea that he wants a perfectly holy God who cannot stand sin, to overlook sin and pardon the unrepentant. Even allowing them to get to heaven.

When God made souls, he made them immortal to begin with, so how is it Pro wants God to annihilate their existence? Don't say I didn't reply to Pro's arguments. I did. Just because he didn't like the answers doesn't show I didn't respond. Pro is letting his emotions about the suffering of hell cloud his judgement when it comes to God's right to do this if he wants to.
Posted by HmblySkTrth 2 years ago
HmblySkTrth
Like I said: avoidance.

A. If God exists, and God created hell, then hell must be moral.

B. If God doesn"t exist, then nobody is qualified to determine morality.

So you sidestep any real debate on the subject. While I agree with (A), you STILL refuse to address another alternative:

C. God exists, but eternal torment is false.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, eternal torment could be wrong because either:

1. Christianity is wrong
2. Eternal torment is incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

Because of these possibilities, you must address his points. But you have avoided them.

And if option (B) is correct, this still doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of debating this subject. In ANY debate, humans are limited. So why bother debating any subject? Why did you sign up with debate.org if you refuse to debate?

Like any debate, this is two HUMANS doing the best they to can present their case. And the readers who vote, also limited in knowledge, try to determine who defended their case better.

If you don"t like how the system works, then don"t debate. But if you agree to debate, then address the points your opponent makes, rather than dismiss them because of the limitations of your human opponent, since you are also limited.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Though I like Pro's Pascal's Lottery analogy. LOL! :-D~

It's no longer just an argument from false dichotomy as is the wager.
Is it better to be a Hindu, Taoist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Bahai, Shintoist, etc.. ad nauseum; if there is a no God than an Atheist is there is a God???
Makes the decision making a little fuzzy!

:-D~
Posted by daley 2 years ago
daley
No, I'm not assuming eternal torment is true, I'm saying that if God exists, and he created hell, there would be no way to prove hell is immoral, which would be in essence trying to prove God wrong! Pro is proposing that even if God himself ordered hellfire, it would be immoral, which is saying that God isn't the source of morality, for how else could God's morals be wrong? Pro would have to show that God COULD NOT HAVE ordered hell, but in that case, he assumes HIS MORALITY IS GOD'S MORALITY, which begs the question, how does he know? He is an atheist for crying out loud. His whole basis for saying hell is immoral is HIS OWN ASSUMPTION that his version of morality is correct. I have given a good argument why God's version of morality would be correct, which would allow him to be right when creating hell and sending people there. Pro has not justified his version of morality, which boils down to an accidental product of evolution.

Even if he could show that I can't prove which version of morality is from God, he still cannot refute my argument that IF God exists, and if he commanded hell, he wouldn't be immoral for doing so. So the teaching that God commanded hell, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HIS OWN MORAL STANDARDS is not immoral.
Posted by HmblySkTrth 2 years ago
HmblySkTrth
Your point has been clear from the beginning.

Pro isn't challenging you to prove God exists. Of course not, because that is not the subject of the debate! Yet this unproven assumption is your starting point for your case. In fact, this assumption has allowed you to avoid actual debate.

"Pro is saying that if God were to exist, he wouldn't burn people in hell because hell is immoral."

You sidestep the "if God were to exist" part of the quote and assume all three premises (God exists, Christianity is true, eternal torment is correct interpretation) are true. When you respond by saying that we are insufficient to determine if God is moral, you are avoiding debate. ONE MORE TIME: this debate is about the morality of eternal torment, not the morality of God.

Yes, humans are limited. And this also includes you. You could be wrong about your belief in God and/or your interpretation of the Bible. You need to acknowledge this and debate the issues, rather than dodge them by saying we cannot question God.

Unfortunately, it is too late for you to respond to Pro's points because the debate will be over after your next argument and he will not be able to reply.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by HmblySkTrth 2 years ago
HmblySkTrth
MailboxVegetabledaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes very good case about how immoral eternal torment is. Con tries to use his beliefs about Christianity to justify his case. When Pro calls him out on this, Con says this cannot be part of the debate. So Con expects everyone to accept his beliefs without debate, which is poor conduct. It is also poor argumentation, since his only real arguments assumed his beliefs. Con went over the top in the last round trying to say his beliefs about God overrule logic.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
MailboxVegetabledaleyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument stood or fell based upon his claim that there is a difference between hell and the lake of fire. As this is not the standard hell belief, he needed to explain why this is the case. His failure to do so loses him this vote. Pro's actual use of sources wins him those points.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
MailboxVegetabledaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that God (by the agreed standard of hell) agrees with Hitler in torturing Jews for being Jewish. Con argues "If they couldn't appreciate the love of God in this life to move them into worship, what makes you think they will see God's love in hellfire?" I do agree with con that less than 98% would convert from evidence.... "But I never said that people who go to hell couldn"t be freed from this place if they didn"t repent." Actually you accepted the debate with the rules of the debate limiting your argument to exactly that. As pro was the only side actually arguing for or against the resolution as outlined, it's a no contest victory. CONDUCT: (also the bit above) Con willingly violated the rules of this debate with his Romans 2:11-16 bit, and his "The real anguish, even more so than the fire in that place, will be to experience forever total separation from God" bit (arguing type B hell, after agreeing to argue type A hell). SOURCES: Too little to give either a lead.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
MailboxVegetabledaleyTied
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: 1. Conduct - I didn't like how Pro made so many appeals to emotion. For example, he says, "How anyone can rationalize that this is justified is completely beyond me." Moreover, he writes, "I simply ask Christians to have some empathy and compassion for non-believers". This type of behavior is improper when it comes to formal debates. 2. I have to give Con points for arguments since this debate presuppose that the Biblical hell exists. Since it presupposes its existence, then it presupposes that the God of the Bible exists. Since the Bible says that God is holy, then He cannot do anything immoral. Thus, this validates Con's arguments from authority, including how we can't know everything that God knows.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
MailboxVegetabledaleyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's religion chart was inaccurate, so the source was unreliable. Pro's claims about choosing and deserving Hell were inaccurate,so arguments were not convincing.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
MailboxVegetabledaleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con failed to upset Pro's competently asserting Pro's BOP. Con drifted off topic went to discussing Christianity, which essentially non-sequitur, as Hell was a product of the O.T. God which includes Christianity and is not distinct from it. Pro's argument that God wiped out many innocents in Biblical actions when it could have spared every innocent life and only taken out those it needed to, due to Omniscience and Omnipotence, demonstrated God as Immoral and also that casting anybody into fire for eternity is also over the top immoral. Con had a really hard topic to debate, the cards and evidences were stacked on Pro's side.