The Instigator
treyprice
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The Many Worlds Interpretation can resolve the problem of Hell

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,568 times Debate No: 17830
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

treyprice

Pro

(this is my first debate, so please tell me if I make any grammer or spelling mistakes)

For centuries, one question has perplexed Christian thinkers, how can God be omnibenevolent while sending people to Hell? 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." shows that God wants everyone to be saved, God is also Omnipotent and his will is always done, which is a contradiction unless explained through the Many Worlds Interpretation. The Schr´┐Żdinger's cat thought expirement shows that the cat was both dead and alive simultaniously until it was observed, which forced it to take one state or another. In practical terms, every outcome of every possibility is played out, from whether an electron spins in one direction or another, or whether a person chooses to be saved. So logiclly, whenever someone is told about Christ, he or she must make a decision whether or not to accept him and like every other event in the universe, both events play out and only the observation of the event forces the person to be saved or not, so everyone who has ever been told about the Gospel is simultaniously saved and not saved.

Sources
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the topic treyprice.

There is empirical possibility and logical possibility. There are other worlds which are LOGICALLY possible, but the only world that actually exists is this one. Since the logically possible world where I accept Christ DOES NOT exist in this world, then I am damned to hell empirically, in real life, according to Christian Doctrine, meaning that God is not omnibelevonent, since he wants me tortured forever (my opponent concedes to this point in Round 1 - that if a person is damned to hell, God cannot be omnibenevolent; don't let him change this advocacy later).

In addition, God must be necessarily omnibenevolent, meaning that he is omnibenevolent in ALL POSSIBLE worlds. Otherwise, we could conclude that God is omnipotent, for example, just because it is POSSIBLE for God to be omnipotent in a possible world, even if he is NOT omnipotent in this one. But omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence all imply necessity - existence in all possible worlds.

Even if my opponent is right, God would still not be omnibenevolent in THIS world, which disproves God's existence in this world (since he is defined as omnibenevolent). And because the definition of God is as necessarily existing (Plantingua's ontological argument), meaning existing in all possible worlds, then if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any world. So my opponent cannot extrapolate then to other worlds, since God would not exist in those either.

To show why this is a horrible approach, it justifies torture. If I said "tell me who stole the cookie or I'll cut your ears off," that creates two possible worlds, one where you tell me who stole my cookie and one where you don't tell me. In this world, you don't tell me and I cut off your ears. But this is not a mean thing to do because there is a possible world where I didn't do this. That doesn't make me any less bad of a person.
Debate Round No. 1
treyprice

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge Bluesteel

My opponent's argument that it is possible for God to be omnibenevolent in another world while not in this world depends on the idea that God is subject to the Quantum events which is logically impossible since if God can be affected by Quantum events then he must also affect them through his observation of the universe, which would not allow the interference pattern that was seen in the double slit experiment.

My opponent is correct in saying that God would not be omnibenevolent in this world unless recent discoveries in quantum mechanics are taken into account. In the traditional Christian worldview, a person can be saved or damned, only one or the other, based on their decision of whether or not to accept Christ. However, recent discoveries show that all possible outcomes play out which renders the traditional worldview logically impossible, so at the moment someone is told about Christ, both outcomes, the person accepting and rejecting Christ, play out. Which also resolves another logical problem in Christianity, if a person sins their entire lives and then accepts Christ on their deathbed and goes to heaven, how can God be just? When quantum mechanics is taken into consideration, it shows that everyone who is given the chance to accept Christ simultaneously goes to Heaven and pays for their sins.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the quick response treyprice.

==Rebuttal==

R1) The Double Spit Experiment

This is an experiment in quantum physics where we get a refraction pattern from light passing through two slits. Then we shoot just one electron, and we still get the same refraction pattern, as if it passed through both slits simultaneously. Then when we try to measure which slit the electron goes through, the refraction pattern disappears, since by observing the electron, we fix its location in space time.

My opponent claims that God is not affected by quantum physics, otherwise, if he was, he would affect quantum physics as being a universal observer. However, this would disprove God's omniscience, since he cannot know the location of electrons, or this would mean that we wouldn't ever get a refraction pattern from the single electron. It is my opponent's burden to show how this doesn't contradict God's ability to know all.

Even if you assume that God is in both theoretical worlds simultaneously, the one where I go to hell and the one where I don't, as an observer, I personally will know which world I reside in and if I reside in the world where I go to hell, this still precludes the other from existing in THIS world, so God is still the one damning me to hell in this world.

This still buys into my argument about empirical vs. logical possibility. My opponent wants to remain agnostic about all possible worlds, but only one of them will be the real world, as far as we are concerned. So it doesn't matter if in a possible world I'm not cutting your ears off for refusing to tell me who stole my cookie, empirically, I'm doing it for real in this world.

My opponent never answers my argument that God must be necessarily omnibenevolent, meaning he is omnibenevolent in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. My opponent still concedes that there are possible worlds where he is not omnibenevolent.

Look to his own Schrodinger's Cat example. Until we open the box, we don't know if the cat is dead or alive. However, we have already opened the box in this case - we know whether we have accepted Christ and if we have already gone to hell, we know the outcome already, so empirically, one of the possible states ceases to exist.

Lastly, if my opponent is right, this defeats the purpose of God letting people choose whether to accept Christ or not in the first place, since he uses his omnipotence in other worlds to alter the course of events and change our brain psychology sufficiently so that we are essentially forced to accept Christ.

Lastly, my opponent must assume a communal hell, that is the dumping ground for ALL possible worlds, meaning that if you're saved in one possible world you're saved in them all. This would defeat the purpose of hell to begin with in Christian doctrine, since it would have to be empty for my opponent to properly resolve omnibenevolence. This makes absolutely no sense.
Debate Round No. 2
treyprice

Pro

Thank you for the quick response bluesteel

After reading my opponent's rebuttal, I'm afraid I have no further arguements to support my position. So I admit defeat.
bluesteel

Con

My opponent concedes, so vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
When you take into account the infinite nature of God, and punish accordingly, even a small sin against an infinite God becomes eternal. Beyond that, you are supposing that we are being eternally punished for the sin itself, when in reality we are being eternally punished for our rebellion against God. The sin is simply a result of that rebellion.

Small sin times infinity = infinity.

Big sin times infinity = infinity.

I did not say that I supported the idea of a more severe punishment for assaulting the president... It is a reflection of the understanding that the magnitude of the punishment is related to the magnitude of the person offended.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Yeah...you're analogy doesn't help at all. It makes things worse, in fact.

The roles of "boss" and "president" are social distinctions <em>not</em> moral distinctions. It'd be ridiculous, especially for a Christian, to say that one should get less of a penalty for killing a homeless person than the president of the united states. As a Christian one should be committed to position the equal moral worth of <em>all</em> human beings. One's social station doesn't affect one's moral worth. If you tried to kill your boss you should get the same penalty, morally speaking, as if you tried to kl the president. You're conflating social status with moral status. No one should think it's less morally serious to your boss than to kill a fellow employee. Social status should be irrelevant in moral considerations like this.

Not to mention the fact that this type of argument entails that every sin (like stealing a paper clip) is equally an offense against an infinite God and is deserving of eternal punishment as you conceive it. Again, this means that every sin has this consequence. If that's the case then you've yet again wreaked havoc on the retributive theory of justice because the theory demands that a punishment be proportional to it's offense. A just judge can't very well go around giving the same punishment for every offense - especially such a harsh one.

So, yes, an eternal punishment of conscious torment does outstrip the offense.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
It only outstrips the offense if God is morally equivalent to humans.

If try to kill my boss, what happens? I get sentenced to attempted murder and do 15-20 years.

If I try to kill the President, what happens? Life without parole.

We understand that because of the station of the President, he is morally not the same as other persons in terms of offenses against him.

If God is infinitely more morally valuable than humans, then an eternal punishment does not outstrip the offense.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Reformed, it'd be unjust because the punishment outstrips the offense. That wreaks havoc on the retributive theory of justice that that argument presupposes.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
KJW, if the offense is against an infinite God, then why is it unjust for the punishment to be eternal? Especially when God has made a way to escape this punishment?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
wow kjw47... I thought you were gone.

Looks like you are back to once again not support your arguments and simply make assertions.
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
kjw47
God is a God of perfect Justice-- The proof is by him sending his son to pay for what Adam lost for mankind-- So for 70-90 years of a life of unrepented sin--God would not condemn an imperfect mortal to trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions,etc of years of eternal hellfire suffering. Only those who do not know God would teach such a thing about him, those who have no understanding of his written word.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." shows that God wants everyone to be saved.

This passage does not show that... It isn't speaking of eternal destination.

Peter is addressing the Church (You is directed at believers) and the "perishing" that God does not desire is for Christians to suffer under persecution.

Context context context.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
"There is empirical possibility"

Wut.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
treypricebluesteelTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gracefully concedes.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
treypricebluesteelTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Bluesteel's argument about the omnipotence of god, and how it applies to ALL WORLDS, and rebuttal to treyprice's claim was effective enough to have Pro concede.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
treypricebluesteelTied
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: Pro forfeit.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
treypricebluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
treypricebluesteelTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession