Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An argument against hell

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 5:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

You are going to get a lot of---it is not eternal burning, just for a few years till hell is thrown into the lake of fire. B S in other words.

I look at moral issues and ask theist to answer a few questions.

It looks like this-------

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.

To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah's flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell a moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God's as no one can speak for God.

Regards
DL
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 8:20:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That kind of stuff might come up in a debate, but just wanted to test my premises and conclusion for now.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:09:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

Your argument fails because it excludes the free will of human kind. While God does give us the grace to obtain heaven and he wants everyone to do so, he cannot force it upon us. Your conclusion then doesn't follow from widely accepted Christian theology.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:23:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:09:55 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

Your argument fails because it excludes the free will of human kind. While God does give us the grace to obtain heaven and he wants everyone to do so, he cannot force it upon us. Your conclusion then doesn't follow from widely accepted Christian theology.

Consider then, that 'widely accepted Christian theology' also postulates an all-loving and all-powerful deity. If such a being has the power to prevent us from going to hell, and the moral obligation to do so, hell cannot exist.

Besides; if god exists in the form of an all-powerful being that judges humanity, then the Christian concept of free will is an illusion. And on top of that, you're falsely assuming that belief is a conscious choice; it's not.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:30:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 5:40:00 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

You are going to get a lot of---it is not eternal burning, just for a few years till hell is thrown into the lake of fire. B S in other words.

I look at moral issues and ask theist to answer a few questions.

It looks like this-------

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.

To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah's flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell a moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God's as no one can speak for God.

Regards
DL

1. Our sins are not finite. Throughout our lives we make a choice to either accept God's grace or deny it. Also, you are theologically incorrect in saying God sends us to hell. Souls bound for hell send themselves there because we refuse God's grace

2. They don't go to hell. There are two types of sin; mortal and venial. Mortal sins are committed when the sin is grave, the sinner has full knowledge that the act was extremely wrong and had full knowledge and will in creating it. Mortal sins completely detach us from Sanctifying Grace. Venial sins on the other hand do not completely detach us from God. Venial sins simply weaken our connection with God. However it will not send you to hell.

3. According to John Paul II, state of the soul for people who definitively and freely choose to separate themselves from God. So yes it is just punishment if Christianity is true.

4. The soul of a human is made in the image and likeness of God. While I am not saying that he would be unable to destroy the soul, but it would be unlikely that he would.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:31:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just to clarify, you can't have everything.

What are the factors? All-loving, all-powerful, hell and the concept of free will.

Add them all up and the result is an impossibility, something has to be taken out.

For example; if you omit all-loving, the result would be an all-powerful being judging you on unjust terms, said being is therefore able to send you to hell, and the so called 'free will' can be thrown in for this entities sadistic pleasure.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:39:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:23:07 AM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:09:55 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

Your argument fails because it excludes the free will of human kind. While God does give us the grace to obtain heaven and he wants everyone to do so, he cannot force it upon us. Your conclusion then doesn't follow from widely accepted Christian theology.

Consider then, that 'widely accepted Christian theology' also postulates an all-loving and all-powerful deity. If such a being has the power to prevent us from going to hell, and the moral obligation to do so, hell cannot exist.

Besides; if god exists in the form of an all-powerful being that judges humanity, then the Christian concept of free will is an illusion. And on top of that, you're falsely assuming that belief is a conscious choice; it's not.

Hell is reserved for people who make a deliberate and conscious choice to separate themselves from God. God cannot force his creation to love them because he gave them free will. You are mistaken here.

God's omnipotence does not contradict free will. Nor have you made any effort to show that it does. God instituted free will and said we would not take it away. God does not go back on his word. It contradicts God's nature and God cannot contradict his nature.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:39:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:30:05 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:40:00 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

You are going to get a lot of---it is not eternal burning, just for a few years till hell is thrown into the lake of fire. B S in other words.

I look at moral issues and ask theist to answer a few questions.

It looks like this-------

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.

To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah's flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell a moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God's as no one can speak for God.

Regards
DL

1. Our sins are not finite. Throughout our lives we make a choice to either accept God's grace or deny it. Also, you are theologically incorrect in saying God sends us to hell. Souls bound for hell send themselves there because we refuse God's grace

Are you trying to propose that faith is a virtue? And that subsequently rationality and skepticism are sins?

2. They don't go to hell. There are two types of sin; mortal and venial. Mortal sins are committed when the sin is grave, the sinner has full knowledge that the act was extremely wrong and had full knowledge and will in creating it. Mortal sins completely detach us from Sanctifying Grace. Venial sins on the other hand do not completely detach us from God. Venial sins simply weaken our connection with God. However it will not send you to hell.

Then you must consider rationality and skepticism a mortal sin, because they are currently the only things that keep me separated from your notion of 'god'.

3. According to John Paul II, state of the soul for people who definitively and freely choose to separate themselves from God. So yes it is just punishment if Christianity is true.

Even if Christianity were true, I would place serious doubts upon it's idea of 'justice'. Infinite punishment for a decidedly finite crime is unjust in every sense of the word. Also, have you read the old testament lately? It depicts a very vivid account of god's 'justice'.

4. The soul of a human is made in the image and likeness of God. While I am not saying that he would be unable to destroy the soul, but it would be unlikely that he would.

Where is it mentioned that he destroys the soul? I was under the impression that the whole eternity of torture would include prolonging ones existence.

I was typing the other post and got side tracked, it didn't take this one into account.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:40:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:31:35 AM, Physik wrote:
Just to clarify, you can't have everything.

What are the factors? All-loving, all-powerful, hell and the concept of free will.

Add them all up and the result is an impossibility, something has to be taken out.

For example; if you omit all-loving, the result would be an all-powerful being judging you on unjust terms, said being is therefore able to send you to hell, and the so called 'free will' can be thrown in for this entities sadistic pleasure.

I fail to see how this follows. You are being arbitary. However you are also missing a factor. God is also completely just.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:44:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:39:03 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:23:07 AM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:09:55 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

Your argument fails because it excludes the free will of human kind. While God does give us the grace to obtain heaven and he wants everyone to do so, he cannot force it upon us. Your conclusion then doesn't follow from widely accepted Christian theology.

Consider then, that 'widely accepted Christian theology' also postulates an all-loving and all-powerful deity. If such a being has the power to prevent us from going to hell, and the moral obligation to do so, hell cannot exist.

Besides; if god exists in the form of an all-powerful being that judges humanity, then the Christian concept of free will is an illusion. And on top of that, you're falsely assuming that belief is a conscious choice; it's not.

Hell is reserved for people who make a deliberate and conscious choice to separate themselves from God. God cannot force his creation to love them because he gave them free will. You are mistaken here.

In the event of an omniscient and omnipotent being, especially one that is postulated to be all-loving, free will is an illusion. We can do nothing without that beings approval, he must therefore approve of us condemning ourselves to an eternity of torment. His all loving nature would not allow for this.

God's omnipotence does not contradict free will. Nor have you made any effort to show that it does. God instituted free will and said we would not take it away. God does not go back on his word. It contradicts God's nature and God cannot contradict his nature.

Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. He cannot contradict himself if he is omnipotent and omniscient, yet with the given factors (hell, all-knowing, all-loving and free will), he does in fact contradict himself. One of the factors must therefore be dropped in order to make the claim possible.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:46:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:40:25 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:31:35 AM, Physik wrote:
Just to clarify, you can't have everything.

What are the factors? All-loving, all-powerful, hell and the concept of free will.

Add them all up and the result is an impossibility, something has to be taken out.

For example; if you omit all-loving, the result would be an all-powerful being judging you on unjust terms, said being is therefore able to send you to hell, and the so called 'free will' can be thrown in for this entities sadistic pleasure.

I fail to see how this follows. You are being arbitary. However you are also missing a factor. God is also completely just.

It was in the previous post, but I'll repeat in case you did the same thing.

I was typing the other post and got side tracked, it didn't take this one into account.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:44:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:09:55 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

Your argument fails because it excludes the free will of human kind. While God does give us the grace to obtain heaven and he wants everyone to do so, he cannot force it upon us. Your conclusion then doesn't follow from widely accepted Christian theology.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it's all man's fault".

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:51:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:30:05 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:

1. Our sins are not finite. Throughout our lives we make a choice to either accept God's grace or deny it. Also, you are theologically incorrect in saying God sends us to hell. Souls bound for hell send themselves there because we refuse God's grace


This assumes we have full disclosure of God and his ways.
At no time do we have this from your invisible absentee super God.

To then judge our un-belief as worthy of punishment when we do not have all the facts to base our decision on is completely unjust.

Your God hides and then punishes those who do not find him.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:59:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:39:03 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:23:07 AM, Physik wrote:

Hell is reserved for people who make a deliberate and conscious choice to separate themselves from God.

For this to happen, they must know God. How can one fathom the unfathomable. Impossible.
Do you know this God?
What does he think of cloning and stem cell research?
Be exact. My soul depends on it.


God cannot force his creation to love them because he gave them free will. You are mistaken here.

God's omnipotence does not contradict free will. Nor have you made any effort to show that it does. God instituted free will and said we would not take it away. God does not go back on his word. It contradicts God's nature and God cannot contradict his nature.

Was God not taking the free will to live away from those at Sodom?
What about the free will to live to live that people had in the days of the genocide of Noah's people?
Did none of those millions want to live?
Your God is no respecter of our free will.

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:05:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:39:20 AM, Physik wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:30:05 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:40:00 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

You are going to get a lot of---it is not eternal burning, just for a few years till hell is thrown into the lake of fire. B S in other words.

I look at moral issues and ask theist to answer a few questions.

It looks like this-------

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.

To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah's flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell a moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God's as no one can speak for God.

Regards
DL

1. Our sins are not finite. Throughout our lives we make a choice to either accept God's grace or deny it. Also, you are theologically incorrect in saying God sends us to hell. Souls bound for hell send themselves there because we refuse God's grace

Are you trying to propose that faith is a virtue? And that subsequently rationality and skepticism are sins?

2. They don't go to hell. There are two types of sin; mortal and venial. Mortal sins are committed when the sin is grave, the sinner has full knowledge that the act was extremely wrong and had full knowledge and will in creating it. Mortal sins completely detach us from Sanctifying Grace. Venial sins on the other hand do not completely detach us from God. Venial sins simply weaken our connection with God. However it will not send you to hell.

Then you must consider rationality and skepticism a mortal sin, because they are currently the only things that keep me separated from your notion of 'god'.

3. According to John Paul II, state of the soul for people who definitively and freely choose to separate themselves from God. So yes it is just punishment if Christianity is true.

Even if Christianity were true, I would place serious doubts upon it's idea of 'justice'. Infinite punishment for a decidedly finite crime is unjust in every sense of the word. Also, have you read the old testament lately? It depicts a very vivid account of god's 'justice'.

4. The soul of a human is made in the image and likeness of God. While I am not saying that he would be unable to destroy the soul, but it would be unlikely that he would.

Where is it mentioned that he destroys the soul? I was under the impression that the whole eternity of torture would include prolonging ones existence.

I was typing the other post and got side tracked, it didn't take this one into account.

1. Rationality does not demand atheism. Skepticism also does not demand atheism. God separated us from other animals and gave us the gift of reasoning. I would suspect he wants us to use it.

2. Once again, no. However Jesus said people could only obtain the kingdom of heaven through him. Nor do rationality and skepticism inherently separate people from God. I would say that pride does.

3. Sin is not finite. Sin is an act that does against divine law. It is not like breaking mortal laws that are punished with fines or jail time. Rather sins completely separates us from God and cuts us off from his Grace. Now God, being a forgiving God, forgives our sins and can reestablish the link of Sanctifying Grace.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:08:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 4:40:25 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:31:35 AM, Physik wrote:
Just to clarify, you can't have everything.

What are the factors? All-loving, all-powerful, hell and the concept of free will.

Add them all up and the result is an impossibility, something has to be taken out.

For example; if you omit all-loving, the result would be an all-powerful being judging you on unjust terms, said being is therefore able to send you to hell, and the so called 'free will' can be thrown in for this entities sadistic pleasure.

I fail to see how this follows. You are being arbitary. However you are also missing a factor. God is also completely just.

Would your definition of just include giving the punishment he warned of only, without adding on more out of nowhere?

What if God named only one consequence for instance for a certain sin and after the sin, when he was punishing, he just arbitrarily added on a bunch more consequences and punishments that the sinner did not know were hidden from him by God himself?

Careful on your answer. You know I have an example of your God doing just that.

Is it justice to come up with new and unknown punishments?

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:16:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 11:44:23 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:09:55 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

Your argument fails because it excludes the free will of human kind. While God does give us the grace to obtain heaven and he wants everyone to do so, he cannot force it upon us. Your conclusion then doesn't follow from widely accepted Christian theology.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it's all man's fault".

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Regards
DL

Evil is the absence of goodness, which God is the source of all goodness. It would be illogical to assume that God could create it as it goes against his benevolence.

I give my child a car. He is licensed by the state and knows how to drive. I thought him to be a good driver. I gave him clear rules to follow. Now if he breaks those rules, drives recklessly and kills a man, is it my fault? Free will is the same way.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:18:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:08:17 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:40:25 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:31:35 AM, Physik wrote:
Just to clarify, you can't have everything.

What are the factors? All-loving, all-powerful, hell and the concept of free will.

Add them all up and the result is an impossibility, something has to be taken out.

For example; if you omit all-loving, the result would be an all-powerful being judging you on unjust terms, said being is therefore able to send you to hell, and the so called 'free will' can be thrown in for this entities sadistic pleasure.

I fail to see how this follows. You are being arbitary. However you are also missing a factor. God is also completely just.

Would your definition of just include giving the punishment he warned of only, without adding on more out of nowhere?

What if God named only one consequence for instance for a certain sin and after the sin, when he was punishing, he just arbitrarily added on a bunch more consequences and punishments that the sinner did not know were hidden from him by God himself?

Careful on your answer. You know I have an example of your God doing just that.

Is it justice to come up with new and unknown punishments?

Regards
DL

Tell me the bible verse so I know what you are talking about. However God never does anything without a reason. Thus it was not arbitrary.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:32:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:16:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:

I give my child a car. He is licensed by the state and knows how to drive. I thought him to be a good driver.

God is supposed to be omniscient. There is no "thinking" (as in uncertainty) when decides to endow his creatures/children with free will. He already knows their situation and knows whether or not they are up to snuff. It'd be fairly inept of him to give a "drivers license" to one he knows is going to misuse it in full ignorance (because what human can fully grasp the implications of an eternity in hell given our finite-ness?) of what the consequences (eternal, conscious torment) are going to? If my child is attempting to jump off a roof from a skyscraper for no good rhyme or reason then I am going to do my best to stop her and I don't really care if it's her own "free-willed" deciscion to do so. She wouldn't understand the full implications of what would happen. Heck, if I was going to jump off a roof for no reason (some irrational spell takes hold of me, let's say) I'd want my friends and family to do everything in their power to stop me. Free-will is not so sacrosanct as all that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:39:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:16:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:44:23 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

Evil is the absence of goodness, which God is the source of all goodness. It would be illogical to assume that God could create it as it goes against his benevolence.


Then you give mankind the power to be co-creators with God.
Thank his sorry as s for me.

That makes these lies.

Right?

Ephesians 3:8-10
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Revelation 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

If man created evil, it would have been for God's pleasure.

Your leader seemed to think so.

Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.
Martin Luther

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:41:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:32:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/14/2012 12:16:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:

I give my child a car. He is licensed by the state and knows how to drive. I thought him to be a good driver.

God is supposed to be omniscient. There is no "thinking" (as in uncertainty) when decides to endow his creatures/children with free will. He already knows their situation and knows whether or not they are up to snuff. It'd be fairly inept of him to give a "drivers license" to one he knows is going to misuse it in full ignorance (because what human can fully grasp the implications of an eternity in hell given our finite-ness?) of what the consequences (eternal, conscious torment) are going to? If my child is attempting to jump off a roof from a skyscraper for no good rhyme or reason then I am going to do my best to stop her and I don't really care if it's her own "free-willed" deciscion to do so. She wouldn't understand the full implications of what would happen. Heck, if I was going to jump off a roof for no reason (some irrational spell takes hold of me, let's say) I'd want my friends and family to do everything in their power to stop me. Free-will is not so sacrosanct as all that.

True. I was trying to show how we misuse God's gift of free will. However God has always made it clear the implications of sinning against him.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:48:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:18:54 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 12:08:17 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:40:25 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 4:31:35 AM, Physik wrote:
Just to clarify, you can't have everything.

What are the factors? All-loving, all-powerful, hell and the concept of free will.

Add them all up and the result is an impossibility, something has to be taken out.

For example; if you omit all-loving, the result would be an all-powerful being judging you on unjust terms, said being is therefore able to send you to hell, and the so called 'free will' can be thrown in for this entities sadistic pleasure.

I fail to see how this follows. You are being arbitary. However you are also missing a factor. God is also completely just.

Would your definition of just include giving the punishment he warned of only, without adding on more out of nowhere?

What if God named only one consequence for instance for a certain sin and after the sin, when he was punishing, he just arbitrarily added on a bunch more consequences and punishments that the sinner did not know were hidden from him by God himself?

Careful on your answer. You know I have an example of your God doing just that.

Is it justice to come up with new and unknown punishments?

Regards
DL

Tell me the bible verse so I know what you are talking about. However God never does anything without a reason. Thus it was not arbitrary.

Give your answer first on the information given. It is a clear question.
I did not ask if he had a reason for it. I am asking if it is good justice to ----using a simple analogy for you----add on punishment that no one knew about?

I E. We all know that speeding brings a given fine per mile over the limit.
Would it be justice for a judge to levy that legal fine, and then, out of the blue, arbitrarily add on some jail time?

It is a simple question that you should be able to answer.

I can make it more simple for you.

If you tell your child that if he does not come in by 8 PM, he will be grounded for 1 day, and he happens to be late, and instead of the 1 day grounding, you ground him for 5 days.

Is that justice?

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:41:16 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 12:32:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/14/2012 12:16:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:

I give my child a car. He is licensed by the state and knows how to drive. I thought him to be a good driver.

God is supposed to be omniscient. There is no "thinking" (as in uncertainty) when decides to endow his creatures/children with free will. He already knows their situation and knows whether or not they are up to snuff. It'd be fairly inept of him to give a "drivers license" to one he knows is going to misuse it in full ignorance (because what human can fully grasp the implications of an eternity in hell given our finite-ness?) of what the consequences (eternal, conscious torment) are going to? If my child is attempting to jump off a roof from a skyscraper for no good rhyme or reason then I am going to do my best to stop her and I don't really care if it's her own "free-willed" deciscion to do so. She wouldn't understand the full implications of what would happen. Heck, if I was going to jump off a roof for no reason (some irrational spell takes hold of me, let's say) I'd want my friends and family to do everything in their power to stop me. Free-will is not so sacrosanct as all that.

True. I was trying to show how we misuse God's gift of free will. However God has always made it clear the implications of sinning against him.

I will prove you wrong after you answer my little simple question above.

Regards
DL
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 2:27:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

If you used this in an actual debate you would have lost at the outset.
I applaud you placing it here to formulate.

You have two fallacies here: (and one more in the conclusion but the premises are not true to the conclusion is irrelevant)

First, both your first premise and your second premise have a ‘causality fallacy'.
Second, both your premises possess a background ‘limited deduction fallacy'.

I will start with your first premise:
Your first premise's 'then' statement does not follow from the 'if' statement that precedes it.
'Possible' does not necessitate 'will'.
Because ‘X' is true, ‘Y' does NOT necessarily follow.
Hume does a lot of work on the causality fallacy. Very interesting read if your read a synopsis of his work. NOT interesting if you read Hume's actual work.

Again restated, nothing about "possible for God" being actual or factual makes the claim that "God 'will' prevent that person from going to said hell" true.

Any defense to your premise would easily be pointed out to be a 'limited deductive fallacy'.
You saw Johnny do this repeatedly in this forum.

***
Your second premise follows the same fallacious reasoning.
Nothing about God's 'abilities' or ‘power to do so' necessitates that God has the 'mental desire' to save evil people from such a fate designed by him.
Again ‘X' being true does not necessitate ‘Y' to be true.

Any attempt to make the cause follow would be easily countered by your opponent as a 'limited deductive fallacy'. He would point out, that you are ignoring all the facts surrounding the deduction and merely limited yourself to select premises.

***
Hopefully this will aid you as you formulate your logical argument against a single instance of hell.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 3:01:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 12:39:19 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/14/2012 12:16:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/14/2012 11:44:23 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

Evil is the absence of goodness, which God is the source of all goodness. It would be illogical to assume that God could create it as it goes against his benevolence.


Then you give mankind the power to be co-creators with God.

First of all, for the sake of the argument, let us say that humans or angels created evil. That doesn't make them equal or co-creators with God. We had no say in the creation of the world or the cosmos.

Also, I hold that we did not create evil. Evil wasn't even created at all. Evil is the absence of good. We are unable to create the absence of something. That is the absence of a building? Nothing. The idea of creating nothing is absurd.
Thank his sorry as s for me.

That makes these lies.

Right?

No

Ephesians 3:8-10
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Revelation 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

If man created evil, it would have been for God's pleasure.

Not worded that way my Bible. Possibly a flawed translation? But any way, and this is third hand information so I could be wrong, but I believe these verses state that despite the existence of evil, God's plan will prevail.

Your leader seemed to think so.

Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.
Martin Luther

Yeah I disagree with him. However I am not a Lutheran.

Regards
DL
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 5:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

What is possible and what is RIGHT are two completely different things!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:01:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 5:58:50 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

What is possible and what is RIGHT are two completely different things!

So infinite punishment for a finite act, with the judgment being carried out by a morally perfect being, is right?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:46:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 2:27:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

At 1/13/2012 5:04:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am thinking of putting together an argument against the existence of a certain kind of hell.

Hell in this case been a place/state that of suffering that never ends. Note: This is mean't in the absolute literally sense, a hell that exists for a temporal duration that is then destroyed or ceases to exist would not count as the hell I am referring to too.

God = All knowing, all powerful, morally perfect

Just looking at the premises/conclusions for now, feel free to add improvements.

1) If its possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering then God will prevent some one from non ending suffering

2) It is possible for God to prevent some one from non ending suffering

C) Therefore Hell (a place/state of non ending suffering) does not exist.

If you used this in an actual debate you would have lost at the outset.
I applaud you placing it here to formulate.

You have two fallacies here: (and one more in the conclusion but the premises are not true to the conclusion is irrelevant)

First, both your first premise and your second premise have a ‘causality fallacy'.
Second, both your premises possess a background ‘limited deduction fallacy'.


I will start with your first premise:
Your first premise's 'then' statement does not follow from the 'if' statement that precedes it.
'Possible' does not necessitate 'will'.

In the general sense yes I agree. But in this case I would have further argument to support IF possible for God Then God Will in support of premise 1 and the denial of premise 1 is less plausible.

Because ‘X' is true, ‘Y' does NOT necessarily follow.
Hume does a lot of work on the causality fallacy. Very interesting read if your read a synopsis of his work. NOT interesting if you read Hume's actual work.

Again restated, nothing about "possible for God" being actual or factual makes the claim that "God 'will' prevent that person from going to said hell" true.


Any defense to your premise would easily be pointed out to be a 'limited deductive fallacy'.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see how I have committed the deductive fallacy.

You saw Johnny do this repeatedly in this forum.

***
Your second premise follows the same fallacious reasoning.
Nothing about God's 'abilities' or ‘power to do so' necessitates that God has the 'mental desire' to save evil people from such a fate designed by him.
Again ‘X' being true does not necessitate ‘Y' to be true.

It can't be fallacious in the way you imply, its mere possibility statement. Until proven its impossible the premise stands.

Any attempt to make the cause follow would be easily countered by your opponent as a 'limited deductive fallacy'. He would point out, that you are ignoring all the facts surrounding the deduction and merely limited yourself to select premises.

I will challenge there so called "facts", I won't accept assertions as facts and will point any assertions out as such.


***
Hopefully this will aid you as you formulate your logical argument against a single instance of hell.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12