The Instigator
Owl099
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

There is no hell

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 56102
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Owl099

Pro

There is no hell. God loves all his children and anyone who sins, sins because the devil (any opposite so God that does not have to be physical) has taken over a person and that person becomes confused. When I say there is no hell, I mean that there is no hell that human souls actually go to and are tortured and sent there by God. If we are all Gods children, why should we choose against him if he did not create us to choose against. It is the devil that creeps into us and takes us.

My opponent will have to prove against that. In order to argue against me, my opponent will have do the following:
a)Argue as that God exists
b)Know what hell is
c) Argue about a loving creator or be able to prove
that there is not

I hope that we can have a nice debate and there are no rules in it.

Have a good debate :).
Debate Round No. 1
Owl099

Pro

Point 1. By Hell I mean there is no fair punishment that God gives us. To argue the fact that the "Opposite to God" (any opposite that could be the Devil) takes souls to Hell and God can not do anything about it would mean that Con is possibly correct, but I mean that there is no Hell that God sends us to himself. If God loves us (you might have to prove that he does not) then why would he:
1 give us a choice to do good or evil because that caused so much sadness (e.g. Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vlad the Impaler)?
2 send or allow us to suffer in Hell?

Point 2. If we are all creation of God, then why would we choose to Sin? The only reason why we would do that is if the "Opposite to God" gets into us and makes us do evil things and how is that our fault? Why would God want to punish us even if there was something that allowed us to choose?

Point 3. In order for us to choose against God, there would have to be some force that is neither good nor bad but if God and the opposite are so powerful and the people who do evil are obviously confused in what they do and if we are not Gods ourselves and only have been created, then how would any neutral force be able to make us make a decision if we are created by God and thus think like God would want us to think and if the opposite got into us, it is the opposite that is making us do evil things and not us. So if we are creation, then how can we possibly make choices like that? I come to the conclusion that Hell is only an invention of humans possibly for hatred or for wondering where those who sin go to when they die. I say that they are given another life and another one after that until they can get all the sin out of them and go to heaven (but there are always in human form) and to prove that, I can say that the idea of Reincarnation is half correct. Either that or people who sin and do not get rid of it go nowhere or become Ghosts or there is no heaven or any other reasons that are possible but the idea of them going to hell is wrong and you will have to prove against that.

Back to you Con

Have a nice day :).
Mikal

Con

Resolution - There is no hell

A affirmative statement like that could be stated in almost any regard

"There is not God"

"There is no hell"

"Zeus does not exist"

The issue is that you need objective evidence to make a claim like that, not circumstantial but empirical and verifiable evidence. This is not an argument from probability, so we are not arguing the likelihood of a Hells existence. We are specifically debating that Hell does not exist

My adversary is Pro so he has the BOP to shown beyond a doubt hell does not exist, not that it does probably not exist. If he shows it probably does not exist he looses, he must show that it does not exist with objective and empirical evidence.

Per the rules I will debate the issues he requested I debate and then offer refutations.

C1) God Exists

I can lay out arguments to show that God possibly exists and it is likely that he exists. I do not need to show that he exists because that is not my burden of proof. My adversary has the BOP to show that Hell exists all around, I need simply show that a God possibly exists.

Note : Even if I am incapable of doing this, this does not effect this debate. The BOP is still on him to show that hell does not exist. Points for God

A basic outline for the KCA

[P1] Everything that exists has a cause
[P2] The universe began to exist
[C] The universe has a cause.

What we can see is that cause is most likely the big bang. We know the big bang exists because of CMBR [1]. So that brings up the question what caused the CMBR, then one caused the matter that caused it. This premise can be applied to anything back until we could trace the origin of time. Everything was created at the time of the big bang, so if matter was created at the time of the big bang what caused the big bang.

At some point it is logical to believe a deistic God created the universe. It may not be probable, but it is a logical belief.

C2) Hell

Essentially a place of eternal torment for sinners. This could be literally or metaphorically. The issue with this is that my adversary must limit down the scope of a specific hell and show that it exists. There an infinite number of possible hells. In his last round he chose to narrow this down to a christian hell. He defined it as punishment God gives us

The first thing i would like to note is that he did not make hell a tangible place. This could very well be a concept in the mind. Meaning hell could be different in every possible mind.

[P1] If hell is not tangible it can vary in each mind, and has infinite possibilities
[P2] according to my adversary hell is not tangible
[P3] There could be an infinite number of possible hells.

C3) God is loving

Love is subjective both to us and non tangible beings if they exist. The definition is relative, there is no way to define Gods perception of love.


C4) Possibility

Possibility - The fact or state of being possible.

Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that hell exists is possible. There is no empirical evidence to show that it does not. Most people can only logically assume that hell does not exist. This does not mean that it is true, it means that there is a high probability that hell may not exist. So we can acknowledge that hell could exist, because there is no way to show that hell existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence.

Therefore hell existing is a possibility. My adversary must show some type of empirical evidence that shows that hell does not exist. If he is able to show this the existence of hell will contradict known facts, therefore it would not be possible. There is no evidence to support this claim however, and there is no empirical evidence to show that it does not exist

therefore hell could possibly exist.




R1) Hell is a punishment

I addressed most of this in C2


R2) Choice of Sin

We chose to sin because of free will. God made us with the intent of choosing him openly, not forcing us to worship him because he could make us. He was well aware most of us would sin and that others would accept him. If he is intangible and omnipotent, he knows all and sees all so everything is already preordained.

Punishment would equate to justice

and justice is based on perception. In this case the perception of the non tangible being that is labeled as God. This is the same concept as love. We have no idea what is love and justice to him, but it could be any number of possible things.

R3) Some thoughts he had

This entire thing is false and can be answered with free will. We sin openly because God allows us to make our own choices. In all honesty this is non applicable to this debate.

You wind this up by saying the idea of going to hell is wrong

That is a non sequitur in this type of debate. By saying that someone going to hell is wrong, you are admitting a hell exists which concedes this point to me. Whether or not is wrong is entirely irreverent because we are discussing whether it exists, not whether it is a just punishment.


Concussion

My adversary has not shown that hell does not exist. I have shown that it could possibly exist. He has not upheld his bop/

[1] http://www.astro.ucla.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Owl099

Pro

Thank you for your reply.

Just before I move onto the main rebbutles, I just want to say that in Round 2, I state the following:

"By Hell I mean there is no fair punishment that God gives us" so I did mean that by Hell and just to state that I said that if God loves us, why would he punish us? That certainly states that God exists. So my point that there is no Hell is just saying that God exists and does not give us any punishments. And finally I do not see how this could possibly be related to Zeus (if I am talking about a loving God).

Now onto the points:

Point 1. You have ignored or missed one of my rules which is: Believe in God or Debate as if he does, by saying that I have to prove that God exists because it will be you who, by accepting this debate, has to prove it as well. However I will go on to prove that God either exists or is something special and thus it is more likely for him to exist:

RELIGION ITSELF
When people claim to have a holy feeling when they enter religion and are mainly happy and happiness is (as far a we know) going positive and not negative for the feeling that humans get when they are happy is known as positive so obviously religion itself must be something special and so it is very likely that God exists. (For information on this I would recommend searching on the Internet for Monks and Nuns experiences, this is not where I got my information from but it will prove that I am right.

Point 2. By Hell it is obvious that it is not a metaphor for how would God be able to punish us like that? So your point saying that it could be metaphoric is not revelent. By Hell I could easily mean a Christian Hell but it is mainly suggesting any Hell with a God that loves us, however if I use the evidence of Monks and Nuns then it is Christian and I am arguing about a Christian Hell but it could be any Hell that I am arguing that there is not, with any God that loves us. The Hell that I am arguing about is not tangible to the human body but the human soul. There could not be an infinite number of possible hells because we don't have an infinite choice because the idea of Hell is one idea and thus although there could be many possible Hells, it could not go forever because what we have and what we live in is limited in ideas, i.e. : There would have to be some possible idea to go with Hell in the whole Universe. So that is what I mean by Hell.

Point 3. We can easily tell what God thinks love is, the love that we know is the love that God created and how else would we know love if God did not create it for us, unless the Devil or the Opposite to God created it, and as far as we know, God created love and kindness himself and that is what we know him as (a loving God) and so you will have to prove what love is if God did not create it for us and know it, himself.

Point 4. If a loving God exists, then it is impossible to have a Hell. And I have used the evidence that God exists in Point 2. I am not talking about the possibility of Hell if a loving God exists, I am saying that it is impossible.

Point 5. Why would God choose us to continue? Why would he not just end human lives with non pain? So God would (if he were a loving God ) give us a choice to sin? And remember my example of Vlad the Impaler who put people on wooden spikes, or Joseph Stalin who starved the Ukrainians or Mao Zedong who ordered his men to make steel instead of the food that they needed and ordered his people to beat and humiliate his own people by force, God by giving us a choice would be the father of evil doings as well as the father of good doings. And of course God sees things the same way as we do, if we are his creation and we know thing that are associated with Church and Religion ( the ones that preach a loving religion) as the love and kindness that we know. And how come when humans do good, they feel happier and I recommend that you find out about people like Stalin who destroyed themselves because of doing evil.

Now could you please tell me what you mean by: BOP.

Thank you for replying to my debate.

Have a nice day :).

Back to you Con.
Mikal

Con

Just a note I am an agnostic with a slight lean to deism in some regards. So my personal beliefs are irrelevant. I can debate the existence of a God from any angle I feel and still abide by the rules. I just have to assert that I believe God exists. That does not change the BOP on this debate. My adversary must show

"There is no hell'

That is his burden in this debate. Stating that there may not be a hell, or that may probably not be a hell will cause him to lose the debate. He must show beyond doubt there is no hell to uphold his end of the BOP


R1) Religion

My adversary makes a baseless assertion. He states it is likely God exists with no evidence to support it. Granted it for this case, we can agree that there is a possibility that God exists which entails and provides for my case I suppose. So I accept this point?

Note : My adversary accepts there is a God, but that there is no hell.

R2) Hell

The point I was making is that hell could be any possible punishment. Hell is a an idea you perceive by the bible. It is a lake of fire that has different qualities depending on which text you read. All of these qualities vary from a metaphorical standpoint and each persons mind. So hell is essentially a punishment God would invoke on us for not accepting him, but it could be any possible punishment which the likelihood of it being the lake of fire.

After reading down my adversary just literally type out my entire point for me and conceded to it.

" The Hell that I am arguing about is not tangible to the human body but the human soul. There could not be an infinite number of possible hells because we don't have an infinite choice because the idea of Hell is one idea and thus although there could be many possible Hells, it could not go forever because what we have and what we live in is limited in ideas, i.e. : There would have to be some possible idea to go with Hell in the whole Universe. So that is what I mean by Hell"

This is basically asserting my point. If there is any possible number of hells, we could possibly go there. We do not have to for certain go there, but if there lies a possibility that we could my adversary has not fulfilled his bop

See my C4 in R2

If any possibility exists of hell being real, he loses this debate. For him to uphold the resolution, he must show there is no possible way or not possibility of hell existing which cannot be done.

R3) Loving God no hell

Essentially this is easily refuted. He said if Gods loves us why would he send us to hell. Even by acknowledging a God we are acknowledging the fact he lets us go to hell. God by definition is omnipotent. So by my adversary conceding there is a God he is conceding the fact that God knows everything. That is whom will love him and whom does not. So that answers his own question for him. When God created us and knew some of us would worship him and some would not

The essential premise is the subjectivity of justice. Justice to God is different than justice to us or would be different than the justice that we perceive.

[P1] Justice varies/is subjective in every possible God
[P2] God is a possible mind
[P3] His definition of justice is subjective.

Hell is any possible punishment for now choosing to worship him after he created us. He can still love us and punish us. That is a fact.

Conclusion

Again my adversary dropped almost all of my contentions and especially he possibility arguments which is the crux of this debate

For him to when he has to show there is no possible way for hell to exists. He has to do with with verifiable and empirical evidence. He has failed to do so and not upheld his BOP.
Debate Round No. 3
Owl099

Pro

Thank you for your response. I read that you were Agnostic before, but you are right to say that in this debate it is irrelevant, and that is what I say as well.

Point 1. You suggest that I will have to prove that there is such a thing as God, so it does not matter what angle you debate from because you are saying (in the debate) that God exists. When saying that I have to prove that God exists because it is not your burden of proof, it is completely your burden of proof by saying that you will debate as if God exists as well as it is mine.

Point 2. I have heard by information on these religious experiences from other sources, sources that you might not find on the Internet, but I can almost guarantee that you will find some experiences like that on the Internet, and if you wish me to, I will find some source or sources.

Point 3. How can Hell be real or metaphorical, I fail to see. One type of Hell could be a metaphor for any punishment that God gives us but by Hell I mean punishment given by God.

The idea that God sends people to: e.g. (not necessarily a real idea) A tower of thorns. If this is a metaphor, then it is obviously not a real Hell. By saying that there is no Hell, I mean that there is no real Hell that a loving creator would send us to (a punishment).

Point 4. I am afraid that, I worded my point wrong. I meant to say that there would have to be a reason associated with everything in the universe for it to be possibly infinitive. Also, if you use the example of the Big Bang, you can not suggest that there is such a thing as infinity because the Universe is said in one of the Big Bang theories, to be expanding and thus there is no infinity. You could I suppose argue using another idea that the Big Bang happened and moved on to infinity and is not still expanding but you would still remain wrong for you are suggesting that there could be infinitive reasons but how could they, because with reasons themselves, they would have to be associated with everything in your supposedly infinitive Universe, and you will have to prove how is that. Also by Hell I mean that there is no possible punishment that God intetionaly gives us, I do not mean any specific Hell, I mean any punishment given by God.

Point 5. I do not mean that God has all the power there is known to us, otherwise why would he not destroy all sin and make sure that there is no opposite to him? Thus God can not necessarily foretell what will happen to us and even if he could, it is still not our fault that we have sinned because we only sin because of the opposite to God. If we are creation of God then we (mainly) would think like him and so how would justice as we know it be any different to the way that God (our creator) knows it.

Point 6. If you are arguing, saying (in the debate) that God exists and have not yet proved that God is not a loving creator, I do not have to prove that there is not a Hell without the proof that I have not already given, so it is you who has the burden of proving against me. So I will just go over the proof that I have already given:

a) God created us and so we cannot choose against him unless the Devil got into us
b) It is either God or the opposite who is making us do the things that we do
c) Humans are not powerful enough to choose unless there was a neutral force
but how will there be able to be one, because is it not the Devil who makes do
evil and if we are all Gods creation, why with this neutral force (if there is one)
would we choose against God

So you will have the burden of proving how that is incorrect. If that is all correct, then how is there Hell?

We know justice because God created it and thus it is God whom sees justice the same way that we do. By justice I mean dealing with sinners and not punishing them, that is true justice.

Your Point about God loving us and also punish us is incorrect. I will prove it here:

1 God's love to us makes us happy
2 If God punishes us and makes us sad

If God loves us then why would he make us sad. We also associate God with kindness and if he is kindness, then why would he punish us. God is loving and he is not just love but also kindness. A God however that loves us, would not punish us if upsetting is a force of evil (Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Vlad the Impaler were upsetting people and that was not a thing of God to do) so upsetting is against God, and the fact that it is a punishment does not make it moral for Joseph Stalin and Mao could say correctly that they were punishing those who apposed them and surely that was not a thing of God to do. They might just be fighting back but if it was a punishment, surely you cannot say that it was not a moral thing to do. So if it is God, then God cannot punish and also love.

Now I will just go through certain remarks you mad throughout the debate:

1. You suggest that when I said that Hell is tangible to the human soul and not the body you suggested (along with the reasons that I meant that was suggesting that the possible types of Hell could not be infinite) was what you were saying which is not the case because you stated the following:

That I said that Hell is not tandgebal

You may have meant that it is not tangible to the human body but to the soul is what I said but it did not look like that.

2. "Most people can only logically assume that Hell is not possible" that is probably right but from the evidence that I have given, that is more than assuming on my part and I am not debating on possibility or probability, but on fact if God exists and is a loving creator.

These are my main points given and please tell me if I have missed anything or not explained something in such a way that you would understand.

Thank you for replying and have a Good day :).

Note: I may have made some spelling errors
Mikal

Con

This debate is almost over from this point, and I will explain why

R1) BOP

I agreed to take the argument per round 1 that God exists. Arguing that God exists is not the BOP nor is it the resoultion. The resolution is , there is no hell

Note : God existing or not existing does not prove there is a hell. That is your BOP to show there is no hell

In addition , I used the KCA to show that a God could exist. However in the last round, you stated and agreed that God does exist. So me debating that he does exist is entirely pointless from that point.

R2 ) Not relevant to the debate

Even if you were to find sources in this specific topic, it will not prove a hell exists. At most the evidence is circumstantial if even valid. We can dismiss this as presenting new arguments in the last round is against basic procedure.

R3) Love

Love=/= Justice

Which was the entire point behind that premise. God sends us to hell as a form of justice for rejecting him. This entire point in this round is not relevant to the resolution.

R4) If God exists, hell does not exist

This is entirely false, and I shot this entire argument down in my last round. The premise behind the arguments is that God loves us so he would not send us to hell. This is false, and I have explained why countless times. If God does exist he would send us to hell for rejecting him. Justice to God and justice to us are entirely different. My adversary is taking his perception of justice and love and applying it objectively. This is false.

R5) non topicable

This is not even relevant to the debate.

Conclusion.

This debate is almost over from this point. I debated the points my adversary wanted me to debate which all have been dropped, and he has failed to uphold his burden of proof to show that the resolution is true. He must show that hell does not exist. Again he can not show that it probably does not exist, but that there is no possibility it exists. See my possibility argument for clarification.

He has failed to uphold his BOP , thus this debate is over

vote con
Debate Round No. 4
Owl099

Pro

This is not the end of the Debate. Con has failed to prove that souls can make a choice. How can they possibly make a choice if they are God's creation unless it was the Devil who got into them and surely that was not their choice.

Point 1. I never suggested that arguing that God exists is the resolution. And of course your debating to show that God exists was pointless from an arguing point, however it just shows that we have proof. You also stated before you wrote this evidence of God, that it does not effect the debate which was completely correct from arguing point of view.

Also, a loving God does prove that there is not a Hell.

Example:

I shall take this in steps.

Step one: God creates the world and humans in it.

Step two: The humans think like he wanted them to
think with love and kindness

Step three: The Opposite to God took over and made humans
corrupt.

Step four: (only for Christians to believe) Jesus Christ helped the humans and
because of him, they are doing more good
(step four is not relevant to the debate necessarily, however the other steps are)

Conclusion:

If we are creations of God, we would not choose against kindness and the rest of his teachings, unless the Devil got into us but if it did, how is that our choice. Therefore there is no Hell that God sends us to.

Con has failed to prove against that.

So this leaves us to say, if we are only creation then we cannot choose against God unless the Devil got into us but that is not choosing ourselves. So how can Justice be justified in this situation ? And let us say that some Muslim terrorists today, are probably killing many, whilst thinking that they are punishing (doing justice on) those who do not accept them, the amount of suffering is terrible and you are suggesting that this is what loving creator would do to his creation ?

Also, just to say that my point was just as relevant to the Debate when proving that God exists then you were.

So Con has failed to prove that there is a neutral force the makes us able to choose, or that Hell can be justified or how possibly would a loving creator torture his own people.

Point 2. From the points above, I have proved that it is not possible for there to be a Hell, if there was a Hell then how would it have a loving creator sending souls to it, to be tortured, you will have to prove that torture is a just thing to do because any kind of punishment = any kind of torture. Also torture is creating sadness (e.g. Mao, Stalin and Vlad the Impaler) and as far as we know, creating sadness is against God.

Con has failed to prove any of these points wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the reasons why not to vote Con:

1. Con has failed to prove that there is a neutral force that makes us able to choose against God

2. Con has failed to justify any torture

3. Con has failed to show how we are able to choose against God

4. Con has failed to show how if God exists, how has he given us
a choice.

Thank you and even though you may not be reading this:

Have a nice day :).

(Proof of the idea of the Devil taking over after God's perfect world:

Source a) Bible Gateway: Genesis 2:4-3:24
Source b) Conversational Theology : Why is there so much evil in the world ?)

Vote Pro
Mikal

Con

I don't feel like typing in circles because he still has not addressed the resolution. I am going to lay this out one more time and show how he has not fulfilled his BOP

Conclusion

For something to be possible it has to be *capable* of existing or being true without contradicting proven facts or laws. So let's lay it out in a final syllogism

[P1] For there to be no possibility of hell, it would have to contradict proven fact or laws.
[P2] Hell does not contradict any proven facts or laws.
[C] There is a possibility hell exists.

This is a top down syllogism meaning you need P1>P2>C. There is no way to get verifiable or empirical evidence to support or disprove the existence of hell one way or the other. We can only make logical assumptions. A logical assumption or dealing in odds odds of probably is not contradicting any known laws. For there to be no possibility of hell existing it would have to contradict a known law, which is intrinsically impossible given its nature.

That is why he has failed to uphold the BOP.

Remember he is claiming "Hell does not exist". For him to win this debate he has to show that it "does not exist" by showing that there is no possible way of it existing. He has failed to do this. At be he shown it may not exist, which he still looses the debate and at work he did not even debate the resolution

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Owl099 2 years ago
Owl099
Vlad the Impaler however was not evil. He was tortured by the Turk Sultan and so he had grim memories and that made him do evil.
Posted by Owl099 2 years ago
Owl099
It may be a pain for those whom I do not want to debate with.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
The three conditions you list make this a pain to accept.
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
Pro has chosen the wrong style ..... .
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Owl099Mikal
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument appears stronger Con cited the KCA which has an unproven P1 premise, thus can be deemed as False, Though if a truly Benevolent God existed, as Pro states Hell would not. Con's explanation of or justification of Hell is irrational.
Vote Placed by Linkish1O2 2 years ago
Linkish1O2
Owl099Mikal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: First I would like to point out I'm atheist but for the sake of voting I'll put it aside. First con had one cited quote. Second pro had failed to say what kind of hell was was possibly not real (as there are many different versions of hell) third con had provided a a reasonable answer on all the rules provided by pros opening statement.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Owl099Mikal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: the problem is, pro made lots of spelling errors, and never specified what kind of hell he was arguing for--Christian? Dante's "Inferno"? Therefore Mikal only had to provide the possibility of any hell to exist in order for him to win. Hell does not have to be tangible, as owl agreed, and this concession caused his lost as Mikal provided the possibility, while pro could not possibly prove the impossibility of an intangible hell. His strongest point of god's love was overcome with "Love=/= Justice". Even if we supposed god loves us, that doesn't mean he won't send us down to hell in order for justice.