Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Problem of Hell

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 4:07:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
: 2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
: 6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

I have to go now, so I can't engage in debate, but you have begged the question about what is highlighted. What is highlighted depends on your moral code and is frankly subjective. An omnipotent God therefore has the most flawless moral code, therefore whether we agree or not, it could be argued Hell is morally justifiable. Prove the highlighted premises true.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 4:29:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:07:16 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
: 2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
: 6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

I have to go now, so I can't engage in debate, but you have begged the question about what is highlighted. What is highlighted depends on your moral code and is frankly subjective. An omnipotent God therefore has the most flawless moral code, therefore whether we agree or not, it could be argued Hell is morally justifiable. Prove the highlighted premises true.

P2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable

By challenging this premise you basically assert that eternal torture of a human is justifiable.

Lots of ways to demonstrate this...

P1) If given the choice, THEN it is moral to prevent human torture than to allow it
P2) The choice is given
C) It is immoral not to prevent human torture instead of allowing it

To deny this premise is to reject the morality of preventing torture altogether

P1) An infinite punishment for a finite crime is unjustifiable
P2) Eternal torture of a human is an infinite punishment
C1) Eternal torture of a human for a finite crime is unjustifiable
P3) Humans are incapable of performing an infinite crime
C2) Eternal torture of a human is unjustifiable by his/her own acts

This conclusion doesn't directly defend P2, but it means that in order to defend P2, then the theist must assert that humans are justifiably torturably by acts not their own, which is a pretty clear defeater.

P1 is pretty clearly defended on paper, theists will assert that God is just, and being just means that the treatment is appropriate for the circumstances. Clearly it is impossible for a finite event to have infinite concequences within the same measure, physically and metaphysically.
P3 is pretty easily defended by the fact that we are finite beings, and physically capable of only finite acts, since only God is infinite.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 4:31:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:07:16 PM, CJKAllstar wrote:
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
: 2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
: 6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

I have to go now, so I can't engage in debate, but you have begged the question about what is highlighted. What is highlighted depends on your moral code and is frankly subjective. An omnipotent God therefore has the most flawless moral code, therefore whether we agree or not, it could be argued Hell is morally justifiable. Prove the highlighted premises true.

Also, P6 is true by definition. A wholly good being that is omnipotent and omniscient would always perform wholly good acts.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 5:00:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's another one:

A) God is an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being (assumption)
P1) A wholly good being would choose non existence of a human over eternal torture of that human
P2) God chose existence of a human knowing he/she will experience eternal torture
C) God is not a wholly good being
C2) C1 & A form a contradiction, therefore A is false

P2 is very easily defended, since God is omniscient, and therefore has perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of his creations/actions.

P1 also seems to be very easily defended, it would be a preferable option for any sentient being, there is a reason why people commit suicide, since even finite torture is enough to bridge this threshold. To deny this premise is to assert the opposite, that it is moral to torture someone for eternity than to end their existence, and it goes against virtually any Christian's own sense if morality. It would mean that leaving terminally injured and I'll pets alive and suffering is preferable to euthanising them, which is clearly false.

Also by comparison, it might be moral to sell human babies into slavery, by the justification that they would never have been conceived/born if there wasn't the demand for a child slave, etc. More extreme thought experiments can easily be envisaged, such as a sadistic individual purchasing babies to satisfy his own desires for human torture by causing his purchased babies pain. Clearly most Christians would agree this is immoral, and would argue that it would be preferable if a child was not born than born into such an environment.
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:24:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

I'm not sure if I'll enjoy debating with you in the forums, but I'll quickly give my views anyway...
It seems that the conclusion can be avoided if either:
1) Universalism is true
2) 'Hell' is more of a Sheol type place and merely the grave.
3) That there is a defense from free-will (as you said)
Which all seem consistent with scripture and would all refute the various premises of your argument.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:33:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:24:04 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

I'm not sure if I'll enjoy debating with you in the forums, but I'll quickly give my views anyway...
It seems that the conclusion can be avoided if either:
1) Universalism is true

Huh? What's this?

2) 'Hell' is more of a Sheol type place and merely the grave.

I'm unfamiliar with this, AFAIK this is a 'check-in' station for hell, in which case people are still eternally tortured, and therefore has no effect on the argument.

If it is just a grave then that goes against most every Christian's interpretation of hell that I am aware of. And very much against what even a sideways glance of the gospels and revelation depict. If the bible is so errant, then it's clearly a poorly reliable source.

3) That there is a defense from free-will (as you said)

Doesn't work for reasons I already mentioned, and my second argument (in a separate post) doesn't suffer from this possible theodicy (argument from preferable non-existance)
Which all seem consistent with scripture and would all refute the various premises of your argument.

Be explicit.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:35:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

Response: This logic has been refuted repeatedly by Islam. In Islam, you were in another spiritual form and chose to be a human in this life, in order to be tested and judged for your deeds and attain the reward of paradise. Apart of the agreement is to also be punished for your deeds. YOU SAID YES. Thus you were born.

Therefore, Hell is just because you chose this life and to be tested in this life.

Enjoy.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:39:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:35:29 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

Response: This logic has been refuted repeatedly by Islam. In Islam, you were in another spiritual form and chose to be a human in this life, in order to be tested and judged for your deeds and attain the reward of paradise. Apart of the agreement is to also be punished for your deeds. YOU SAID YES. Thus you were born.

Therefore, Hell is just because you chose this life and to be tested in this life.

Enjoy.

The argument is deductively valid, so you need to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion, unless I made a structure mistake, which I'm sure Toviyah would have quickly spotted if it existed.

Your rebuttal doesn't attack any of the premises, therefore your rebuttal is just plain irrelevant.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:44:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:39:28 PM, Envisage wrote:

The argument is deductively valid, so you need to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion, unless I made a structure mistake, which I'm sure Toviyah would have quickly spotted if it existed.

Your rebuttal doesn't attack any of the premises, therefore your rebuttal is just plain irrelevant.

Response: The argument itself has a false premise, since it attributes logic to God that is untrue, and such logic is used to justify your own belief. Therefore, my rebuttal is valid, since it replaces your false premise. And since you failed to counter the premise, then your own logic shows that the Islamic concept of Hell is just. Thanks for the assistance.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:48:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:44:43 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:39:28 PM, Envisage wrote:

The argument is deductively valid, so you need to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion, unless I made a structure mistake, which I'm sure Toviyah would have quickly spotted if it existed.

Your rebuttal doesn't attack any of the premises, therefore your rebuttal is just plain irrelevant.

Response: The argument itself has a false premise,

Which one? There are six.

since it attributes logic to God that is untrue, and such logic is used to justify your own belief.

Say what? This is a bare assertion. Show where it is untrue rather than just claiming it.

Therefore, my rebuttal is valid, since it replaces your false premise.

It would be great if you indicated which one....

And since you failed to counter the premise, then your own logic shows that the Islamic concept of Hell is just. Thanks for the assistance.

Lol?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:54:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:48:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:44:43 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:39:28 PM, Envisage wrote:

The argument is deductively valid, so you need to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion, unless I made a structure mistake, which I'm sure Toviyah would have quickly spotted if it existed.

Your rebuttal doesn't attack any of the premises, therefore your rebuttal is just plain irrelevant.

Response: The argument itself has a false premise,

Which one? There are six.

since it attributes logic to God that is untrue, and such logic is used to justify your own belief.

Say what? This is a bare assertion. Show where it is untrue rather than just claiming it.

Therefore, my rebuttal is valid, since it replaces your false premise.

It would be great if you indicated which one....

And since you failed to counter the premise, then your own logic shows that the Islamic concept of Hell is just. Thanks for the assistance.

Lol?

Response: Your premise does not include that you chose to be a human. When the premise that you chose to be human is applied, then Hell becomes just since you agreed to the conditions. Therefore, "the problem of Hell" argument fails, you have failed to refute this premise, because you never included it. Therefore, Hell is not a problem.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:58:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:54:11 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:48:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:44:43 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:39:28 PM, Envisage wrote:

The argument is deductively valid, so you need to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion, unless I made a structure mistake, which I'm sure Toviyah would have quickly spotted if it existed.

Your rebuttal doesn't attack any of the premises, therefore your rebuttal is just plain irrelevant.

Response: The argument itself has a false premise,

Which one? There are six.

since it attributes logic to God that is untrue, and such logic is used to justify your own belief.

Say what? This is a bare assertion. Show where it is untrue rather than just claiming it.

Therefore, my rebuttal is valid, since it replaces your false premise.

It would be great if you indicated which one....

And since you failed to counter the premise, then your own logic shows that the Islamic concept of Hell is just. Thanks for the assistance.

Lol?

Response: Your premise does not include that you chose to be a human.

Which one. And so what? The argument is deductively valid without making the extra assumption..

When the premise that you chose to be human is applied, then Hell becomes just since you agreed to the conditions. Therefore, "the problem of Hell" argument fails, you have failed to refute this premise, because you never included it. Therefore, Hell is not a problem.

Lol, logic doesn't work that way. I advise you read up on basic logic, because you are making a complete fool out of yourself.

I will repeat myself, if the argument is valid in structure and sound with true premises, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

You have yet to attack either the structure, not the premises I have presented. Ergo, your rebuttals are completely irrelevant to the argument, and are a red herring rather than anything else.

A red herring is a smelly fish, which is what your case appears to be right now.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:06:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:58:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:54:11 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:48:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:44:43 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:39:28 PM, Envisage wrote:

The argument is deductively valid, so you need to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion, unless I made a structure mistake, which I'm sure Toviyah would have quickly spotted if it existed.

Your rebuttal doesn't attack any of the premises, therefore your rebuttal is just plain irrelevant.

Response: The argument itself has a false premise,

Which one? There are six.

since it attributes logic to God that is untrue, and such logic is used to justify your own belief.

Say what? This is a bare assertion. Show where it is untrue rather than just claiming it.

Therefore, my rebuttal is valid, since it replaces your false premise.

It would be great if you indicated which one....

And since you failed to counter the premise, then your own logic shows that the Islamic concept of Hell is just. Thanks for the assistance.

Lol?

Response: Your premise does not include that you chose to be a human.

Which one. And so what? The argument is deductively valid without making the extra assumption..

When the premise that you chose to be human is applied, then Hell becomes just since you agreed to the conditions. Therefore, "the problem of Hell" argument fails, you have failed to refute this premise, because you never included it. Therefore, Hell is not a problem.

Lol, logic doesn't work that way. I advise you read up on basic logic, because you are making a complete fool out of yourself.

I will repeat myself, if the argument is valid in structure and sound with true premises, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

You have yet to attack either the structure, not the premises I have presented. Ergo, your rebuttals are completely irrelevant to the argument, and are a red herring rather than anything else.

A red herring is a smelly fish, which is what your case appears to be right now.

Response: Nowhere does your premise state that humans chose to be humans. No where. Nor have you shown how Hell is unjust if you chose to be punished by it. Therefore, your premise fails and Hell is just.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:06:31 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:58:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:54:11 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:48:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:44:43 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:39:28 PM, Envisage wrote:

The argument is deductively valid, so you need to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion, unless I made a structure mistake, which I'm sure Toviyah would have quickly spotted if it existed.

Your rebuttal doesn't attack any of the premises, therefore your rebuttal is just plain irrelevant.

Response: The argument itself has a false premise,

Which one? There are six.

since it attributes logic to God that is untrue, and such logic is used to justify your own belief.

Say what? This is a bare assertion. Show where it is untrue rather than just claiming it.

Therefore, my rebuttal is valid, since it replaces your false premise.

It would be great if you indicated which one....

And since you failed to counter the premise, then your own logic shows that the Islamic concept of Hell is just. Thanks for the assistance.

Lol?

Response: Your premise does not include that you chose to be a human.

Which one. And so what? The argument is deductively valid without making the extra assumption..

When the premise that you chose to be human is applied, then Hell becomes just since you agreed to the conditions. Therefore, "the problem of Hell" argument fails, you have failed to refute this premise, because you never included it. Therefore, Hell is not a problem.

Lol, logic doesn't work that way. I advise you read up on basic logic, because you are making a complete fool out of yourself.

I will repeat myself, if the argument is valid in structure and sound with true premises, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

You have yet to attack either the structure, not the premises I have presented. Ergo, your rebuttals are completely irrelevant to the argument, and are a red herring rather than anything else.

A red herring is a smelly fish, which is what your case appears to be right now.

Response: Nowhere does your premise state that humans chose to be humans. No where. Nor have you shown how Hell is unjust if you chose to be punished by it. Therefore, your premise fails and Hell is just.

Lol, you are a complete waste of time. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify and you resort to just repeating yourself.

Please read up on basic logic then come back and then we can have a conversation.

http://www.indiana.edu...
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:20:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:33:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:24:04 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

I'm not sure if I'll enjoy debating with you in the forums, but I'll quickly give my views anyway...
It seems that the conclusion can be avoided if either:
1) Universalism is true

Huh? What's this?
Simply, the view that all will be saved. Ever heard of the UU church?
At first it does seem heretical, but I've seen some work done on it that justifies it in the face of scripture (albeit, not convincing for me as a Christian, but nevertheless, a response to the argument)

2) 'Hell' is more of a Sheol type place and merely the grave.

I'm unfamiliar with this, AFAIK this is a 'check-in' station for hell, in which case people are still eternally tortured, and therefore has no effect on the argument.
Yep, that is what Sheol pretty much is, but I see no issue with positing Hell as a 'Sheol' type environment, with neither eternal reward nor punishment, as opposed to a place of genuine torture.

If it is just a grave then that goes against most every Christian's interpretation of hell that I am aware of. And very much against what even a sideways glance of the gospels and revelation depict. If the bible is so errant, then it's clearly a poorly reliable source.
As far as I'm aware, the view isn't the traditional view. But that's not to say that it isn't consistent with scripture. I suppose that it's the way you interpret it. That itself may raise issues, but none that I see to be serious, especially when you are around as many liberal Catholics as me :)

3) That there is a defense from free-will (as you said)

Doesn't work for reasons I already mentioned, and my second argument (in a separate post) doesn't suffer from this possible theodicy (argument from preferable non-existance)
I think that it pretty much depends on the value you put on the creation of free-creatures. On the Christian view, this is a purely loving action that it would be better to have (and thus have existence with mutual love between God + man) than not to have (but then have no Hell). On balance, existence with free will is 'better' than non-existence without it.
Does it justify eternal punishment/reward? I think so. Particularly if we posit purgatory, I think it's justifiable. We also need to consider Original Sin, and that no human deserves heaven - the mere fact that we have a finite choice is more loving than no choice at all.
Which all seem consistent with scripture and would all refute the various premises of your argument.

Be explicit.
Well, in the sense that each of these views is reconcilable with revelation, and that 1) would deny P1, 2) would deny P3, and 3) would deny P2.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:28:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:20:30 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:33:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:24:04 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

I'm not sure if I'll enjoy debating with you in the forums, but I'll quickly give my views anyway...
It seems that the conclusion can be avoided if either:
1) Universalism is true

Huh? What's this?
Simply, the view that all will be saved. Ever heard of the UU church?
At first it does seem heretical, but I've seen some work done on it that justifies it in the face of scripture (albeit, not convincing for me as a Christian, but nevertheless, a response to the argument)

Does hell exist in such a view?

2) 'Hell' is more of a Sheol type place and merely the grave.

I'm unfamiliar with this, AFAIK this is a 'check-in' station for hell, in which case people are still eternally tortured, and therefore has no effect on the argument.
Yep, that is what Sheol pretty much is, but I see no issue with positing Hell as a 'Sheol' type environment, with neither eternal reward nor punishment, as opposed to a place of genuine torture.

Guess so, then it would falsify p3.

If it is just a grave then that goes against most every Christian's interpretation of hell that I am aware of. And very much against what even a sideways glance of the gospels and revelation depict. If the bible is so errant, then it's clearly a poorly reliable source.
As far as I'm aware, the view isn't the traditional view. But that's not to say that it isn't consistent with scripture. I suppose that it's the way you interpret it. That itself may raise issues, but none that I see to be serious, especially when you are around as many liberal Catholics as me :)

You can get scripture to say almost anything... I mean what is the use of it if it only says things in response to being challenged on it's most obvious readings? Why do they have to bend what they say so much to be consistent with both itself and science?

It's not something anyone should expect of a divine text, that is for sure.

3) That there is a defense from free-will (as you said)

Doesn't work for reasons I already mentioned, and my second argument (in a separate post) doesn't suffer from this possible theodicy (argument from preferable non-existance)
I think that it pretty much depends on the value you put on the creation of free-creatures. On the Christian view, this is a purely loving action that it would be better to have (and thus have existence with mutual love between God + man) than not to have (but then have no Hell). On balance, existence with free will is 'better' than non-existence without it.
Does it justify eternal punishment/reward? I think so. Particularly if we posit purgatory, I think it's justifiable. We also need to consider Original Sin, and that no human deserves heaven - the mere fact that we have a finite choice is more loving than no choice at all.
Which all seem consistent with scripture and would all refute the various premises of your argument.

I'll get back to this tomo, it's 2 am and I'm blurry eyed. Check the second argument.

Be explicit.
Well, in the sense that each of these views is reconcilable with revelation, and that 1) would deny P1, 2) would deny P3, and 3) would deny P2.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:33:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:13:19 PM, Envisage wrote:


Lol, you are a complete waste of time. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify and you resort to just repeating yourself.

Please read up on basic logic then come back and then we can have a conversation.

http://www.indiana.edu...

Response: my responses are written in simple Basic English. So to ask for clarification means you fail to comprehend simple Basic English, and it is for you to point out what words you fail to comprehend. the fact that you continue to dodge in doing so shows the evidence is clear. You're just crying as usual, because as usual, you can't refute it.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:36:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:33:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:13:19 PM, Envisage wrote:


Lol, you are a complete waste of time. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify and you resort to just repeating yourself.

Please read up on basic logic then come back and then we can have a conversation.

http://www.indiana.edu...

Response: my responses are written in simple Basic English. So to ask for clarification means you fail to comprehend simple Basic English, and it is for you to point out what words you fail to comprehend. the fact that you continue to dodge in doing so shows the evidence is clear. You're just crying as usual, because as usual, you can't refute it.

Which premise is false?

He has asked you this about 5 times, and you won't answer. Stop trolling everyone on this forum.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:38:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:33:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:13:19 PM, Envisage wrote:


Lol, you are a complete waste of time. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify and you resort to just repeating yourself.

Please read up on basic logic then come back and then we can have a conversation.

http://www.indiana.edu...

Response: my responses are written in simple Basic English. So to ask for clarification means you fail to comprehend simple Basic English, and it is for you to point out what words you fail to comprehend.

Excellent, I was asking you to use your basic English to tell me how your basic English arguments actually address my basic argument. Because by basic logic your basic English rebuttal doesn't even address it, it is a basic irrelevance. A basic fallacy.

the fact that you continue to dodge in doing so shows the evidence is clear. You're just crying as usual, because as usual, you can't refute it.

It doesn't matter if I could or could not, your rebuttal as it stands is irrelevant to the argument. How does having a choice actually attack anything in it? It doesn't as far as I can see.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:55:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:36:44 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:33:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:13:19 PM, Envisage wrote:


Lol, you are a complete waste of time. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify and you resort to just repeating yourself.

Please read up on basic logic then come back and then we can have a conversation.

http://www.indiana.edu...

Response: my responses are written in simple Basic English. So to ask for clarification means you fail to comprehend simple Basic English, and it is for you to point out what words you fail to comprehend. the fact that you continue to dodge in doing so shows the evidence is clear. You're just crying as usual, because as usual, you can't refute it.

Which premise is false?

He has asked you this about 5 times, and you won't answer. Stop trolling everyone on this forum.

Response: Your very first post on the thread was not even directed at the OP, but towards me. That makes you the TROLL. Brain dead dummy. Stop trolling every person that exposes you. You're better off just admitting defeat, then to be a troll, as if no one is noticing. Dummy.

And since I clearly stated that none of her premises include the concept of choosing this life, then that means that all her premises are false. If you wasn't a troll, you would have noticed that.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 8:01:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:38:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:33:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:13:19 PM, Envisage wrote:


Lol, you are a complete waste of time. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify and you resort to just repeating yourself.

Please read up on basic logic then come back and then we can have a conversation.

http://www.indiana.edu...

Response: my responses are written in simple Basic English. So to ask for clarification means you fail to comprehend simple Basic English, and it is for you to point out what words you fail to comprehend.

Excellent, I was asking you to use your basic English to tell me how your basic English arguments actually address my basic argument. Because by basic logic your basic English rebuttal doesn't even address it, it is a basic irrelevance. A basic fallacy.


Response: And I'm asking you to point out which simple English words you fail to comprehend so I can address you. You fail to do so. Thus your inability to comprehend is you own doing. Debunked as usual.

the fact that you continue to dodge in doing so shows the evidence is clear. You're just crying as usual, because as usual, you can't refute it.

It doesn't matter if I could or could not, your rebuttal as it stands is irrelevant to the argument. How does having a choice actually attack anything in it? It doesn't as far as I can see.

Response: Once again, since you chose to be judged by Hell, then Hell is not unjust. Therefore, your argument fails, and is relevant.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 8:02:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 4:03:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
There isn't too much discussion here regarding the problem of hell, which I think is more significant than the PoE for Christians/Muslims.

There are many formulations, I will present this as a reducio ad absurdum.

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell
2) The eternal torture of a human is morally unjustifiable
3) Hell is eternal torture of a human
4) Hell is morally unjustifiable (from 2 & 3)
5) God chose to create something morally unjustifiable (from 1 & 4)
6) Any being that chooses to create something morally unjustifiable is not a wholly good
7) God is not wholly good (from 5 & 6)
C) 7 & A form a contradiction, therefore the assumption (A) must be false

I'm pretty sure this is logically valid, therefore I have four premises to defend

Defence of P1:
Undisputed by Christians, it's biblical.

Defence of P2:
Again this would be hard to deny, especially with the assumption that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. The free will defence may come in here, but it it hard to see how it validly refutes this premise. Since free will is a finite entity, and would be unjustified as a balance for an infinite punishment.

Defence of P3:
Also hard to deny, as it is biblical.

I imagine this premise would attract the most criticism, but seems easy enough to defend.

Defence of P6:
This again seems prima facie obvious. For something to be wholly good, then objectively all intended actions need to be good with respect to their intentions. Given that god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this extends to mean objectively good, period. Therefore a wholly good being cannot perform a morally unjustifiable act.

Enjoy.

If hell was a place where all the bad people go, then all the Christians of this world would be in it. They were all worshiping false deities and idols that were against the commandments of God.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 8:33:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 7:55:08 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:36:44 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:33:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 7:13:19 PM, Envisage wrote:


Lol, you are a complete waste of time. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify and you resort to just repeating yourself.

Please read up on basic logic then come back and then we can have a conversation.

http://www.indiana.edu...

Response: my responses are written in simple Basic English. So to ask for clarification means you fail to comprehend simple Basic English, and it is for you to point out what words you fail to comprehend. the fact that you continue to dodge in doing so shows the evidence is clear. You're just crying as usual, because as usual, you can't refute it.

Which premise is false?

He has asked you this about 5 times, and you won't answer. Stop trolling everyone on this forum.

Response: Your very first post on the thread was not even directed at the OP, but towards me. That makes you the TROLL. Brain dead dummy. Stop trolling every person that exposes you. You're better off just admitting defeat, then to be a troll, as if no one is noticing. Dummy.

And since I clearly stated that none of her premises include the concept of choosing this life, then that means that all her premises are false. If you wasn't a troll, you would have noticed that.

"Brain dead dummy". Your maturity and rabid intellectualism never fail to impress me.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 8:59:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 8:33:07 PM, Hematite12 wrote:


"Brain dead dummy". Your maturity and rabid intellectualism never fail to impress me.

Response: Words of the deluded.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:01:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 6:58:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:54:11 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:48:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:44:43 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 6:39:28 PM, Envisage wrote:

The argument is deductively valid, so you need to dispute the premises to avoid the conclusion, unless I made a structure mistake, which I'm sure Toviyah would have quickly spotted if it existed.

Your rebuttal doesn't attack any of the premises, therefore your rebuttal is just plain irrelevant.

Response: The argument itself has a false premise,

Which one? There are six.

since it attributes logic to God that is untrue, and such logic is used to justify your own belief.

Say what? This is a bare assertion. Show where it is untrue rather than just claiming it.

Therefore, my rebuttal is valid, since it replaces your false premise.

It would be great if you indicated which one....

And since you failed to counter the premise, then your own logic shows that the Islamic concept of Hell is just. Thanks for the assistance.

Lol?

Response: Your premise does not include that you chose to be a human.

Which one. And so what? The argument is deductively valid without making the extra assumption..

When the premise that you chose to be human is applied, then Hell becomes just since you agreed to the conditions. Therefore, "the problem of Hell" argument fails, you have failed to refute this premise, because you never included it. Therefore, Hell is not a problem.

Lol, logic doesn't work that way. I advise you read up on basic logic, because you are making a complete fool out of yourself.

I will repeat myself, if the argument is valid in structure and sound with true premises, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

You have yet to attack either the structure, not the premises I have presented. Ergo, your rebuttals are completely irrelevant to the argument, and are a red herring rather than anything else.

A red herring is a smelly fish, which is what your case appears to be right now.

Your premises not applying to Islam, although its for other religions like christainity, in Islam you CHOSE it, so if you want to correct things, just add the choosing part first on the top of your premises, if not, your premises not qualifying for Islam. its like judging robbers the same way as you do for murdrers, same punishment. no its not sorry.
enjoy
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:09:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 8:59:38 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 8:33:07 PM, Hematite12 wrote:


"Brain dead dummy". Your maturity and rabid intellectualism never fail to impress me.

Response: Words of the deluded.

Fatihah he knows that if he adding the premise to choose, this argument is a faliure so he cant do it, let him deny it.
Never fart near dog
Fatihah
Posts: 7,762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:11:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:09:26 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:


Fatihah he knows that if he adding the premise to choose, this argument is a faliure so he cant do it, let him deny it.

Response: Yes, I know. They all know. Yet they choose to live in denial.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:17:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:09:26 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/5/2014 8:59:38 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 8:33:07 PM, Hematite12 wrote:


"Brain dead dummy". Your maturity and rabid intellectualism never fail to impress me.

Response: Words of the deluded.

Fatihah he knows that if he adding the premise to choose, this argument is a faliure so he cant do it, let him deny it.

Premises have to be supported, what support do you have for the premise you want to add?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:21:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:17:31 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:09:26 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/5/2014 8:59:38 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/5/2014 8:33:07 PM, Hematite12 wrote:


"Brain dead dummy". Your maturity and rabid intellectualism never fail to impress me.

Response: Words of the deluded.

Fatihah he knows that if he adding the premise to choose, this argument is a faliure so he cant do it, let him deny it.

Premises have to be supported, what support do you have for the premise you want to add?

look he judging according to beliefs in Christanity not Islam you cant see the joke?

A) God, an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being exists (assumption)
1) God chose to create the Humans and Hell (This is not what ISLAM SAYS)
....

This is Christanity, in Islam we chose to be HUMAN TO GO THROUGH THE TEST.
Never fart near dog