This House Believes that Hell exists
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 2: Arguments from both sides
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Short Summary of Arguments
Hell: the place where the souls of bad people are believed to be punished after death, especially in the Christian and Muslim religions http://www.ldoceonline.com...
Exists: To have actual being; be real.
1. Paragraphing for different points is a requirement. Each point or argument must be put into different paragraphs
2. No ad hominem attacks. We all want a nice and smooth debate.
3. No bringing in of additional arguments in Rounds 1, 3 or 4. Acceptance, Rebuttals and Summary must be made in Rounds 1, 3 and 4 respectively.
Let's all have fun, alright? :)
Now, before we move on, let us be clear of who the Burden of Proof is on. The people who claim that Hell exists are usually religious folks who claim that if a person does not follow the rules of their religion, they will go to hell. The idea of Hell, originally, was from religious people, as demonstrated by the definition which I gave to you on Hell and therefore, the Burden of Proof is upon you to answer all of my arguments with clear evidence so that I, as well as the people who are reading this debate, can scrutinize the evidence to check if it is Credible, Consistent and Corroborative.
Let's get started, shall we? My first and main substantive for this debate would be entitled Evidence. Currently, there has been no evidence whatsoever for the existence of hell. Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. There has been no such evidence whatsoever which can indicate that the belief in a Hell is true or valid. If there is some evidence on your part, please state it here with links to different websites so that I can easily cross-check the information and scrutinize the evidence. Some forms of 'evidence' can be made up, you know. Now, the normal response to this would be that the Bible is evidence that Hell is real. Well, the validity of the Bible is questionable in itself, since there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that anything in the Bible is of any historical value. If there is any evidence to prove that the events in the Bible are true, please indicate them here, again with links so that I can cross-check the evidence and information and scrutinize it. Any sort of argument, whether philosophical or scientific, has to have evidence backing it up in order to be sure of it's truth or validity. The evidence must also be good and not contradict any scientific laws unless it clearly sets out to disprove the scientific laws while replacing them with even better explanations for different phenomenon. I do not really think that there is any form of evidence which can do that, because scientific laws are being tested every single day in laboratories and have not been broken even a single time. Please provide the evidence in earnest, thank you.
My second substantive will be entitled Physical Implications. Whether Hell is a place of torture or a place of love and kindness is completely irrelevant. That's a debate for another day. Ignoring all Multiple-Universe theories because of over-complications, the Universe is Nature itself and since Nature encompasses everything which existed, exists and will ever exist, Hell must also be a part of Nature and therefore, the Universe. The argument can be simplified like this:
P1: The Universe encompasses everything that existed, exists and will ever exist.
P2: Hell exists
C: Hell is within the Universe and a part of it.
However, as funny as it may sound, Scientists have been unsuccessful in detecting any sort of physical place which has lakes of eternal fires or anything of that sort. You might say that the place might be invisible to us. However, even if a certain place is invisible and unseen, as a part of the Universe, it must have some sort of effect on the Universe, just like the explosion of a star has some sort of effect on the Universe, such as releasing different materials out into the Universe. So far, we have not been able to see any of these effects on the Universe. We know this because we have traced all of the known phenomenon back to stars and galaxy. If we see two objects orbiting 'something' and suddenly disappearing, we attribute that to a black hole, because it is the only explanation which is scientifically accurate and has theoretical formulas and equations to back it up. We've traced back supernovas to exploding stars as well as black holes to stars which collapse upon their own gravitational field. Again, this is related to my first substantive, Evidence, but it is apart from it, in some sense, as it starts to delve into the implications an existing Hell would have on the Universe and how, if Hell does exist within the Universe, it does not have any effect whatsoever on the Universe as far as our highly advanced instruments of measurement can tell us.
For my third and last argument, it is entitled Eyewitnesses, simply because there have not been eyewitnesses. I don't mean to make the fallacy of 'just because you can't see your brain does not mean it does not exist'. I don't mean that when I make that statement. I'm talking about the accuracy with which we describe a place which we have not really seen. It really is hard to describe what you have not seen, felt, experienced and even come into contact with. It is hard for physicists to describe the Universe because the only thing which we can rely upon are our telescopes and our satellites orbiting the Earth. Moreover, Light takes a particularly long amount of time to come from a distant star all the way to us. Therefore, we are only seeing the place as it was many, many years ago. We do not know the exact condition of the place as it is currently. So, how does one describe a place which they have not seen, felt, experienced or come into contact with? How does one simply believe in a book written by another human being who, himself, did not come into any form of contact with hell? How can someone describe Hell on the basis that it is a place for torture only because a holy book tells you that it is? The typical answer to this would be to say that 'we must have faith.'. Faith is, in this debate, defined as the strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. It is philosophically and scientifically incorrect to just put your faith in something, especially when it has no evidence go it whatsoever. We, as human beings, have to look for the evidence for any claim which is made. If the person who made the claim does not provide any evidence for his/her claims, that claim can be dismissed as quickly as it had been made.
I shall wait for your reply and I shall answer all of your substantives in Round 3. Please refrain from rebutting my arguments just yet and try to just stating your arguments as clearly as you possibly can so that I can give rebuttals towards them and you can give your rebuttals towards my arguments. Please try to type out each point under one paragraph so I can easily answer to each of your points, just as I have for your sake. Thank you very much and have a good day :)
I must start off by saying that the bible (or any religious book, for that matter) does not offer a very accurate representation of what Hell is, or could be. It's about as useful as Dante's Inferno, which is a nice read if you enjoy gruesome tortures being inflicted on people you hate, but not a good source of true evidence. A good depiction of Hell would most likely be Michigan, Hiland Lake in all honesty. However, I'll try to refrain from making jokes about that and will stick to the Hell you have defined.
Hinduism is the best place to turn if one wishes for evidence on Hell being a real place. Now when I say this, I do not mean "eternal damnation", because that is not what they believe in. I'm speaking of karma. Put as simply as possible, Hindus believe that we all have free will, but of the decisions we make we either get bad karma or good karma. This karma will follow a person even to death and into the next life. That being said, everything that happens to a person is well deserved. If a woman in Africa has her genitals mutilated, which is something that happens quite often in certain parts of that continent, she deserved it. If a child is born without legs and has to suffer hardship his entire life, he deserved it. What does this have to do with Hell? "Hell: the place where the souls of bad people are believed to be punished after death, especially in the Christian and Muslim religions"". The Earth is a "place", and no one in life is ever truly innocent, and so the evidence of it's existence is the suffering of mankind at this very moment. It need not be a McDonald's hiding somewhere in the cosmos with the intention of giving bad customer service for eternity with a broken air conditioning unit. It is here, a current thing that we can all see and feel.
Reincarnation is a very real thing, and IS something that has been scientifically proven. This means that every single thing will always be in Hell because mistakes can never be corrected, only repeated. This is because the past cannot be remembered when we are born. And the evidence that reincarnation is real? Let us for instance say I have just died. Because I wish for a natural burial, I will not be put into a coffin. This means my body will properly decay in the Earth, giving back what I had been given at birth. The decomposers being efficient recyclers, would be sure to take care of that, making death become life once more. Thus the cycle of life. And so, we are forever in Hell, which is indeed a place.
I patiently await your rebuttals, and hope you are having a good day as well. :)
Though interesting, the 'Hell' of Hinduism is not the debate which we are having right now. The definition states that Hell, in the context of this debate, is the place where the souls of bad people are believed to be punished after death, especially in the Christian and Muslim religions. In other words, eternal damnation. You know, burning in lakes of fires and that sort of thing. I urge you to stick to the definition of the debate itself, since the definition states that the souls of bad people are punished after death. You must first prove the existence of a soul, which you can't cos there are not enough rounds in the debate (I'm sorry), and then you must prove that Hell itself is a place which exists and it is separate from Earth, as stated by Christian and Muslim religions. As I have mentioned before, your reference to the Hindu religion is intriguing and it is of great intellectual value. However, it isn't really relevant to the debate as stipulated by the definition of Hell.
Reincarnation, in the sense you have just stated, is much more interesting than me being reincarnated literally into a Dog in my next life or a Cow or a Pig. It has been scientifically proven that even if you are dead, the atoms which make up your body still exist and will be converted from one form to another, thus ensuring that you continue to 'live' on in different forms, thus proving Reincarnation. However, Reincarnation, in that sense, is really metaphorical and not literal in the sense of 'I'm a human now and in my next life, my soul will be transformed into a Dog because I did something wrong in this life.'. We don't exactly know how the atoms of our body are going to change from one form to another, after we die and our bodies decompose. So, our 'Reincarnation' does not really depend upon any of the deeds which we did in this life. It's a natural process and since it is clear that natural processes don't actually care what happens to us, our deeds make no difference whatever in our 'reincarnation'. However intriguing this topic is, though, it is not related to the Hell as stated in the definition for this debate. Under normal circumstances, your explanation would suffice in a metaphorical sense of 'Hell' but then, in this debate, we're talking about whether the literal sense of 'Hell' even exists.
The definition for this debate also does state that Hell is a place where the souls of bad people are punished. If we argue on the basis of the Hindu Hell, which is basically on Earth itself, are we all, therefore souls? But that's a fallacy, considering that souls are immaterial and therefore, they are not subject to the Laws of Physics. But we are clearly subject to the Laws of Physics, which clearly proves that we are material and physical, which also proves that we cannot be souls.
With all due respect, I also hope or, dare I say, pray that you do not mean it when you say that African women who have their genitals mutilated deserve that kind of treatment. I believe that it is a little bit sadistic, if you don't mind me saying.
Again, we are debating on the Hell which is stated by Muslim and Christian religions and any other religion which shares their beliefs about Hell and the concept of eternal damnation. Please follow the definition in your rebuttal of my arguments in this round.
Thank you and please note that in your reply, you must refute the arguments which I posted against the motion itself. There should be no direct rebuttals to my rebuttals against your arguments. Rebuttals against my arguments should be the key content in your replies. Round 4 should be a short summary of your arguments and should not include any new arguments. Just clearing this up just in case.
I shall await your rebuttals and I hope you have a nice day.
Now, on the matter of a physical Hell I'm afraid Christianity (or science fiction novels) are not the only things to be considered religion. I don't want to seem patronizing, so please don't take it that way, but there are other beliefs out there such as Buddhism, Sikhism, or what I'm using for the debate, Hinduism, etc. As I stated earlier on, there needn't be demons. There needn't be fiery lakes of doom and gloom. There needn'tt be western devils or Japanese onis. And I do not speak metaphorically when I say Hell exists, because based upon your very on definition It's a place where the souls of "bad" people are believed to be punished after death, especially in the Christian and Muslim religions. And what better place to be tortured than on the Earth, where cruelty is abundant and in fact, eternal, as you stress? Such as the acts of genocide in WW2 in Germany, or even presently in Darfur, Sudan. But if you're really set on lakes of eternal fire as a depiction of Hell, then never fear. We have the Tambora volcano, which has been killing with "lakes of fire" since 1815. Or perhaps Mount Rokatenda, and so on.
I am not an eyewitness to the Holocaust. I am not an eyewitness to the horrors committed in Libya, or areas of South Africa, or the creation of stars light years away. But to say I do not believe in something simply because I haven't seen it with my own eyes would be ridiculous. I know that corrective rape happens in Southern Africa. I know that homosexuals and transgender/transsexuals are persecuted in Russia. I know that Detroit is suffering an economic decline. And all of that is not a product of "faith". All of those things have evidence. And so yes, I agree that on the matter of a claim being made but not having an ounce of proof behind it can easily be dismissed. However, Hell does have evidence of being real. Perhaps not in the way previous human beings have pictured, but it certainly has proof.
I thank you for the round, and apologize for my reply taking so long. You stumped me rather good for a bit. I do hope you have a good day, and await your short summary.
My first argument is entitled Evidence, which is something most advocates of Hell would not have. They do not have the evidence to support the claim of a Hell where you are eternally tormented. As you have stipulated, any claim only remains a claim until evidence has been shown to prove that claim true. Therefore, since there is no such evidence available of a Hell which eternally torments the souls of bad people, we have no reason to believe in a Hell where one goes through eternal torment.
My second argument is entitled Physical Implications. The definition of a Universe states that it is the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy (1). This would also include a Hell as well. Since we can find absolutely no traces of a separate Hell and no phenomenon which can lead us to Hell, we cannot assert the existence of Hell and therefore, we, again, have no reason to believe in one.
My third argument entitled Eyewitnesses seeks to argue that one cannot really describe a place which he/she has not seen. This is where I must say that I agree with you. It is clear that the Biblical account of Hell may not be accurate. However, since we are debating on the Hell of the Bible or the Koran, we cannot include the 'Hell' of Hinduism or Buddhism, as much as I want to, though. Now, as I was saying, it is really hard to describe a place, especially when no one has seen it. I cannot really describe the situation in North Korea because I have not seen it, though I can have a vivid image of what it might be due to news which spreads quickly. Therefore, I can imagine what North Korea would look like if it was warring with other nations but I can't really be definite about it.
I do hope that this summary was good enough for viewers to be able to understand my arguments quickly.. I know I can be a little bit too wordy sometimes and I must request that you forgive me if I have been that way.
I must say that, though you didn't stick to the definition which was stipulated before the debate started, I learned quite a lot and I feel that that is what debate is about. I felt that I could learn something from the other side and I feel that that is enough for me. Thank you for that load of information and a good debate overall. Hope that you have a nice day.
My next argument was, of course, Hinduism. The only valid evidence of there being a Hell would be karma and the act of a type of reincarnation. And while I did not exactly enjoy having to lean on philosophy, karma would be what would determine the fate of souls and such, and why "bad" things happen in life (because it is "well deserved" and Hell is merely the Earth).
My last and final argument, was reincarnation, but not the sort where one would be a human one life then a dog the next. More so appealing to the science side of things, with life, death, decay, then life once more. This would be the cycle of all living things, keeping us in an eternal Hell (Earth).
I'm terribly sorry that the debate sort of derailed, but it was still sort of fun. I enjoyed it, and hope that we can possibly debate again some time. Thank you, and I hope you also have a good day. Oh, and, on a side note... I don't think African women deserve to go through genital mutilation, I was only attempting to make a point.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.