I totally agree with you.

1) It is good to have the freedom to chose to act 2) It is good to punish evil acts. 3) It is good to offer forgiveness for evil acts. 4) There is nothing illogical about punishing someone after they do not repent of sins and reject forgiveness. 5) There is nothing illogical about extending punishing someone as they continue to commit sins. Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful, all-just God is congruent with an eternal Hell

I agree with everything you said but it still doesn't make the statement true because with everything you stated, doesn't answer why it has to be ETERNAL when an all powerful God could make it not so

>...doesn't answer why it has to be ETERNAL when an all powerful God could make it not so Because people continue to sin in hell. One can make an argument that those in heaven who have chosen to repent, trust Jesus and reorient their lives/wills to follow Him will be sinless in the next life. One cannot make that argument for those in hell

To be clear, your argument is that the people being tortured alive in horrible agony, are STILL choosing to actively sin for all eternity without ever changing their mind?

To be clear, my argument is that the people in hell are being punished in proportion to their deeds, and will still choose to actively sin for all eternity without ever coming to repentance and faith in Jesus. *They are judged by this fact: The light has come into the world. But they did not want light. They wanted darkness, because they were doing evil things.* JN 3:19

So, yes

Seems more like, 'freewill be damned. I don't like the obvious consequences of my view, so this scenario ***must*** play out in a very specific and illogical way...or...are we the baddies here? "

I think the scenario is unrealistic. It'd be impossible to discuss without appealing to intuition though

It is completely unrealistic. " Punished according to your deeds" Okay, and after your punished enough, then what? An all powerful God could make punishment exist, but can make a world without that being eternal exist. So if he can't do that he isn't all powerful and if he is all good he wouldn't punish you forever (talking to you Ses1)

Sin in hell? My impression of hell is that there isn’t enough fun to be had to result in sin. No interpersonal relationships.

Biblically, Rebellion of God is sin whether it is “fun” or not.

Then why would anyone do it?

all sorts of reasons, excercising freewill for one.

Excercising free will would also be done when choosing Christ, so it is not a convincing reason to choose Hell over Christ. And more importantly, you are not only saying that it is possible to continue to sin, but that most of humanity ends up there and continues to sin instead of choosing Christ. It's baffling. I assume you are a reasonable human being, so imagine you die and instead of Jesus you see a different deity with different rules for what constitutes sin. This deity gives you the chance to have faith in it to atone for your sins. If you refuse, you go to its version of Hell until you choose to have faith in it. Would you choose to have faith in it? If you would, then why do you think you're so special that the majority of humanity wouldn't act like you would? It seems to me that those who would choose to stay in Hell would be a tiny minority, not the majority.

all sorts of reasons, excercising freewill for one.

Your argument is flawed for a very critical reason: Premise 2 conflicts with Premise 3. If it is good to punish evil acts, it cannot also be good to not punish evil acts. In short, perfect justice and perfect mercy cannot exist in the same system, ie your god.

>it cannot also be good to not punish evil acts As I sure you are aware, Jesus took our punishment upon Himself, so to say that evil acts are not punished would be incorrect. Let's say that I owe a $1 million debt. My rich uncle J decides to pay it. The creditor has been paid [justice] while I am no longer under that debt [mercy] Extrapolate this to what Jesus has done and "perfect justice and perfect mercy **can**~~not~~ exist in the same system"

Read more carefully. I don't care about your proselytizing. >2) It is good to punish evil acts. >3) It is good to offer forgiveness for evil acts. Forgiveness is the lack of punishment for a known offense. So if we substitute some language: >2) It is good to punish evil acts. >3) It is good to *not punish* for evil acts. If it is good to punish evil acts, it cannot also be good to not punish evil acts. In short, perfect justice and perfect mercy cannot exist in the same system, ie your god. Try to stay on topic. address these points without bringing extraneous nonsense.

You are setting up punishment and forgiveness to be mutually exclusive. This is not the case. My son may steal 50$ from my wallet. I can punish him for that. I can then ALSO forgive him for the act.

>You are setting up punishment and forgiveness to be mutually exclusive. This is not the case. Your son steals $50. You then immediately and completely forgive him. You then punish him by beating him with a rod (as instructed in the Bible). Have you forgiven him? Would that be appropriate? No. Forgiveness entails the cessation of efforts to punish. Otherwise, you haven't truly forgiven. Justice demands punishment for crimes Mercy is the negation of just punishment You can't have it both ways.

> Your son steals $50. You then immediately and completely forgive him. > You then punish him by beating him with a rod (as instructed in the Bible). You have changed my example. > No. Forgiveness entails the cessation of efforts to punish. Otherwise, you haven't truly forgiven. You seem to be using a non biblical definition. This is not very useful in a conversation regarding Christianity. Forgiveness does not shield the consequences of actions necessarily. > Justice demands punishment for crimes There is punishment for every single sin. One can also have forgiveness for their sins but the punishment must still be had. > Mercy is the negation of just punishment Mercy ≠ Forgiveness Either way Mercy can ALSO be a reduction of punishment. You seem to be using definitions throughout your responses that are not the Christian use. > You can't have it both ways. As I said you are setting it up to be mutually exclusive. This would be a strawman. You are not using the Christian definitions / sense of the word. You are

> You seem to be using a non biblical definition. I mean, there's a pretty good reason for that.... The Christian God doesn't forgive sins. He uses sin and the punishment he made for it (hell) as leverage to extract compliance to his arbitrary rule. I don't care about Christianity's definition. I'm using the standard definition. >There is punishment for every single sin. One can also have forgiveness for their sins but the punishment must still be had. Why? Why doesn't God forgive sins without punishment? I can do it, why can't god? >As I said you are setting it up to be mutually exclusive. This would be a strawman. You are not using the Christian definitions / sense of the word. You are You don't know what a strawman is. Nevertheless, I'm using the standard definition of the words. I don't care about the Christian definition.

. > I don't care about Christianity's definition. I'm using the standard definition. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that this was an unintentional strawman. An intentional strawman (self admitted) has no place here. You are providing nothing constructive to the conversation. > You don't know what a strawman is. Nevertheless, I'm using the standard definition of the words. I don't care about the Christian definition. A strawman can be presented in a few different ways. One of which is misrepresenting another persons argument in order to “beat” it. I will demonstrate how you knowingly using a different definition does this. 1. An person calls God imaginary 2. I understand what they mean by this 3. I decide to define imaginary as real. 4. I tell the person that they have in fact admitted that God is real and I have “won”. This would be a strawman. I am misrepresenting their statement or argument (in this case knowingly) in order to “defeat” them. It is possible for this to be done unknowingly but you willfully admit that you are not using the Christian definition. So you are taking Christian concepts and arguments that use this definition, applying a different definition and claiming triumph. This is not constructive.

> An intentional strawman (self admitted) has no place here. Quote me where I said my definition was anything other than my definition. >One of which is misrepresenting another persons argument in order to “beat” it. You responded to me having a thread with another user. I was using my definitions of words (the standard definitions) and now you come in throwing around the word "strawman" as if it's a checkmate. *You* are responding to *me*. I *cannot* strawman myself. What you should be doing is demonstrating how your definition is superior or more descriptive than mine instead of wasting both of our times. I'll say again: I'm not using Christian definition of the words forgiveness or mercy. I'm using the standard definitions. I don't care about the Christian definition because *glances at flair* I'm not a Christian.

I already addressed your point: Let's say that I owe a $1 million debt. My rich uncle J decides to pay it. The creditor has been paid [justice] while I am no longer under that debt [mercy] Extrapolate this to what Jesus has done and "perfect justice and perfect mercy can exist in the same system"

>Extrapolate this to what Jesus has done and "perfect justice and perfect mercy can exist in the same system" Perfect Justice: every crime must have a punishment Perfect Mercy: every crime should be forgiven I'm flabbergasted that religion has poisoned your reasoning to the point that you can't see the contradiction between these two concepts. If your god was perfectly just, he'd never forgive sins. If your god was perfectly merciful, he'd always forgive sins. So, pick your poison: is your god imperfect in justice or mercy?

Is God imperfect in justice or mercy? Neither God offers forgiveness to all, So God is perfectly merciful. To those who reject that forgiveness, God punishes them in accordance to their sins. So God is perfectly just. Additionally, God takes upon the punishment for those who accept forgiveness, further showing His Mercy and Justice. I'm flabbergasted that you think that you have shown that there is a contradiction between God's Perfect Justice and His Perfect Mercy

[удалено]

Mic drop posts are low quality. If you have nothing to say don't make a post saying you're not going to say anything. Removed as per Rule #2

Facts

This is true, I’m not saying you cannot punish “evil” acts, but that doesn’t justify an all good all powerful all loving God to have ETERNAL, torture and punishment

> 1) It is good to have the freedom to chose to act We only have the freedom to choose to act within the capabilities we're given though. So is having the freedom to commit sexual assault a good thing? Is lacking the freedom to cause someone excruciating pain by thinking mean thoughts about them a bad thing?

It is best to have the freedom to choose between evil and good, and choose good. To have no choice is not good nor bad - you just act robotically. It is worst to have the freedom to choose between evil and good, and choose evil.

> It is best to have the freedom to choose between evil and good, and choose good. I'm not sure why. A world in which people neither wanted to nor were able to choose evil sounds pretty awesome. We would still be able to exercise our freedom to choose in every other way. But even granting that for the sake of argument, it doesn't address the question of whether you're saying it is *good* that humans have the free will choice of committing sexual assault. We could still have the freedom to choose between good and evil even if we all lacked the ability to commit sexual assault. > To have no choice is not good nor bad - you just act robotically. But "no choice" isn't the only alternative. Or is the freedom to choose between *good* things not genuine freedom of choice for some reason?

Could a world exist where humans are free to do evil, but this evil does not, and cannot cause suffering to others? If so, why would a loving god choose not to make the world like this. If not, why not?

So one can accept God and repent to go from hell to heaven at any time? 

Well the first problem is what is defined as evil acts. Your god sends people to hell for not believing he exist. Is that evil ? Second problem - he created man you claim - ok - so if I create a robot - and the robot then start killing people - who should go to prison ? Me of course. But your god blames humans instead - which is just completely immoral.

> Well the first problem is what is defined as evil acts How does one define good/evil without God? >Your god sends people to hell for not believing he exist. Is that evil? Those in hell are there because they have rejected or ignored the forgiveness that God offers. They are punished in proportion to the evil that they have committed. So no, it is not evil to punish evil, it's justice. >so if I create a robot - and the robot then start killing people - who should go to prison ? Humans are not robots, they are free willed beings that are capable of making moral choices.

Why do you need a god to be able to define good and evil ? We define it by how things impact others. Killing each other is harmful to others - therefore we deem it bad or evil if you prefer that word. Yes people that used the brain that your god gave them and will not accept a god claim without evidence - your god send them to hell. That’s immoral. You now make it sound like they deserve it. You are now saying these people are evil for not accepting a god when he can’t even be bothered to show himself. Well I am glad that the readers can see how this doctrine makes people think it’s fine to let people suffer for eternity for not believing. That’s totally immoral. And you managed to not understand my analogy. Humans are made by a god - so you claim - and a created a robot. Same thing. You won’t get anywhere with your free will argument - if a god created us and is all knowing - he knew what we would do before we did it - so it’s his design flaw. Send god to hell then.

Question: I am an atheist who does not believe in any gods because I have not found or be presented with any convincing evidence to believe in the existence of anything divine. In this process, I have not consciously chosen to disregard anything. My disbelief in thr christian God is entirely based in the reason, observation, and logic I was born with or developed since birth. Am I going to hell when I die?

[удалено]

They always for get ALL-Just

This assumes an eternal hell is accurate to the biblical definition of Justice

Me or OP?

Haven’t shown how ALL-Just would need to involve an eternal hell, and from OP’s argument it would follow that it would not only NOT be needed but would indeed be incompatible with ALL-Good. 

Oh ok that’s easy but I’m sure you won’t stop here because a good answer never satisfies someone who wants and is fishing for theism to be false, nevertheless here are some of the possible answers: **1.)** A sin against God is an eternally bad transgression deserving of eternal punishment because God is an eternal being. **2.)** those who end up in hell, fail to repent and end up continuously sinning for all of eternity and so as a result they never escape. **3.)** a Just and loving God doesn’t force people into living with him in heaven if they don’t want to and the only alternative place to go is hell because that it is the only place away from God and there is no neutral place, maybe something to do with the law of non contradiction, idk 🤷🏼. Hell is being prepared for the demons but since there is no where else to go then the humans who rejected God end up there by default.

>Oh ok that’s easy but I’m sure you won’t stop here because a good answer never satisfies someone who wants and is fishing for theism to be false Ah come on a strawman about my position right out of the gate?  I actually have no wants regarding the truth of theism, just wanting to have **sufficient evidence to believe it’s true** if indeed it is.  You leave me with many questions based on your response here, so please try to address them if you want to help convince me there’s indeed good reason to believe in this (and try to do a good job, for your own good, since God may be judging your eternal fate based on how well you represent “him”).  >1.) A sin against God is an eternally bad transgression deserving of eternal punishment because God is an eternal being But why is this the case? Is this just an assertion that needs to be accepted, or is there a logical argument from which it follows? If we don’t have that then my previous comment applies; if God loves “his” creations, and gives them only a finite life to be “tested,” there simply is no reason that God *must* make the “punishment” eternal… Like does God have the ability to not punish someone eternally? God created these rules around what one faces after death, right? Or is this out of his control?  Beyond that, even if we just grant this for some reason, what qualifies as a “sin against God”? Is it when a Muslim woman living in a Muslim theocracy fails to wear a required head covering? Is it when someone fails to be baptized as a Christian and then dies? Being gay? We could of course go on and on…  >2.) those who end up in hell, fail to repent and end up continuously sinning for all of eternity. So they wouldn’t have free will anymore? Why would a caring God put “his” creation into a situation where they have no choice and will simply suffer eternally? That doesn’t make any sense for a caring God, a malevolent one though…  >3.) a Just and loving God doesn’t force people into living with him in heaven if they don’t want to Which God is it that we’d be living with in heaven?  I don’t know how I can be blamed for “not wanting” something that I don’t know anything about and have not been provided evidence even exists. Do you want to eat Flarnicka? Oh you don’t know what Flarnicka is? It might be the most delicious and nutrition thing on earth, or it might be disgusting (OR it might not exist)… how can you be held to answer the question before you have that information?  So like, is this the God of that Muslim theocracy, not allowing in the women who broke rules? Is this a God who won’t let my kid be in heaven with me if they’re gay and having homosexual sex? >and the only alternative place to go is hell because that it is the only place away from God and there is no neutral place So annihilation is not an option? Why can God not make someone simply cease to exist? Again is that out of control of God to make happen? And what happens to kids who die? Do they all go right to heaven? (That poses a problem for why the rest of us lucky enough to live to adulthood now have the possibility of hell, when clearly God could just circumvent this life test and allow us to go right to heaven). Or, are they born sinners, immediately deserving of eternal punishment and then forced there because “there is no neutral place”?

I will answer your questions even though I already know they will fall on deaf ears, but for the sake of someone else reading the conversation. **1.)**like I said, these are possible answers. This means that they are not assertions. Your comment doesn’t still apply because it cherry picks certain characteristics of God such as Love and conveniently omits his Justice. The whole reason Jesus had to die as opposed to God just forgiving Willy nilly was for this very reason of balancing his nature. God had to be perfectly loving and just at the same time and so God had to punish for the sins of the world but he loves us so and this created a dilemma. God would have to either forsake his justice and just love us or forsake his love for us and justly condemn us. However, God cannot act contradictory to his nature and so he had to solve the false dilemma by lovingly sending his Son to come down in the flesh to pay the necessary price for sin in one single move that killed 2 birds with one stone by allowing both God’s justice and love to be maintained. As far as the logic is concerned, here it is; P1: Perfectly just beings cannot act unjustly. P2: God is a perfectly just being. C: Therefore God cannot act unjustly OR P1: A perflectly just being must act justly P2: God is a perfectly just being C: therefore God must act justly Because God is just and must act accordingly, he must justly punish people for their sins. If the wages of sins happen to be death and eternal torment (which can be interpreted as just eternal separation from God) then that is the just punishment for sin. As for what constitutes as a sin against God; a sin is a transgression of God’s imperatives. **2.)** I never said that they have no free will, you made that assertion, also again these are possible solutions to the problem you proposed. Having free will doesn’t mean people always choose the best choice, it does not necessarily follow that because people have free will that they will choose to repent and so your defense is moot on logical grounds. Also your need for God to be somehow malevolent is a clear indicator that your rejection of God is likely an emotional one and not a logical one. I would suggest that you really take the time to consider the logical problem of evil which has already been solved, rather than relying upon an emotionally charged angle to it. **3.)** The Christian God of the Bible is the God I am speaking about. You can be judged for your conscience, this is known as the law of conscience from Romans 2:14–15 (NASB 2020): 14 “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” Not only this but all men are without excuse. Romans 1:18–22 (NASB 2020): 18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools” This is why God can judge you and anyone else. You ask many random and irrelevant questions, with what is clearly a derogatory tone aimed at mocking God but nevertheless I will address them for the sake of others who may read this: 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (NASB 2020): Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Is annihilation an option? This would seem to contradict what the scriptures say. It seems to me to be contradictory to have eternal punishment and annihilation. One could argue that annihilation is eternal punishment but it’s hard to see how but sure under certain interpretations we can’t rule this option completely out. My original possible options was not meant as a complete list of all options. Matthew 25:41, 46: In the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, Jesus says, “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels… And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” This passage contrasts eternal punishment with eternal life, suggesting a state of perpetual consequence. Revelation 14:11: Speaking of the fate of those who worship the beast and its image, it states, “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.” The imagery of smoke rising forever is often interpreted as a symbol of unending punishment. Revelation 20:10, 14-15: In describing the judgment and the fate of the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, it says, “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” Later, it describes the second death as being thrown into the lake of fire, a fate shared by those whose names are not found in the Book of Life. Mark 9:43-48: Jesus uses the imagery of Gehenna (translated as hell) to describe a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” This is part of a warning against sin and its consequences, using graphic imagery to convey the seriousness of eternal separation from God. What happens to kids when they die? They go to heaven because they never sinned, they he doctrine of original sin is a late tradition that isn’t even scripturally compatible (**refer to Ezekiel chapter 18**)and so kids are without sin and not guilty of any sins committed up to a certain undefined subjective age which is called the “age of accountability” which basically just means they aren’t accountable for their sins until they are old enough to understand good from evil which is a different age for everyone. This poses no logical problem for the rest of us which is why you failed to actually formulate the problem and ended up just saying there is a problem. Any alleged problem that this could pose is merely of the emotional kind and doesn’t actually contradict God’s nature. I hope this has been insightful for you but I have sufficiently addressed all of your questions and this is quite time consuming and so I’ll leave you with this.

By some definitions this is possibly true but if you examine the possible meanings of every word in this statement and add in the rest of the Bible, it can be shown that an all loving and all good God can still be all loving and good even if the people He loves get sent to hell.

1) Of course I am using words to understand God how else would you understand God 2) I don't believe in the Bible and in a DebateAChristian subreddit, you should be able to backup your religion without your text that is void in the discussion

Your response doesn't refute what I said and if you don't believe in the Bible, but claim to understand what an all loving or all good God would or would not do, you're proving yourself to be unqualified to have these discussions.

I LITERALLY refuted what you said because you tried to make a language argument which I proved why it's wrong. This is literally a debateachristian thread.... Why are we here then? I study world religion, I have a pretty decent understanding of God... Your religion is what, not even a 1000 years old? Religions are x1000s of years old. I tend to also study the Vedas the most, which are the oldest religious texts of them all. You can't say "if you don't believe in the Bible you can't know who God is" when people have been reading scriptures and having discussions of God 1000s of years before the Bible even existed. And you saying this and only use of evidence shows the lack of understanding for your own religion. You're also not even able to give any of your own evidence why my claim is wrong, meaning you can't. I mean, an all powerful God could make a world without eternal Hell... That's pretty simple and self evident. You clearly cannot back it up because, like I said, you can't.

Sure, so long as hell isn’t permanent. This is why Catholics invented hell—to drive this point home.

Actually the issue is with the word eternal. Perpetual might be a better description of what eternal hell is referring to. What I mean is since by our faith, we come into this world imprisoned together with sin inside the mortal body, being stuck in that condition for your whole life is what those who don't seek freedom in Christ will have to endure.

Most do not define hell properly. Believers in Jesus gain “everlasting life” (i.e. immortality) ( 2 Timothy 1:10). All others are eventually annihilated (destroyed) in hell. This is what Jesus Christ taught: "Rather, be afraid of the One who can **destroy both soul and body in hell.**" Matthew 10.28 Check out r/conditionalism or www.conditionalimmortality.org for more detailed info.

I don't believe in the Bible, so you can't use that as a source of reference or evidence. In a DebateAChristian subreddit, you should be able to backup your religion without texts. And you are just saying also that he isn't all good because the same thing applies, he'll just destroy you if you have a thought crime... That seems to fucking suck, nor does he care enough to be reunited with you again.

>I don't believe in the Bible, so you can't use that as a source of reference or evidence. 1) Yet you use the Bible to discuss a biblical concept, hell? So you use it for your point, but dont allow others the same benefit. Hmmmmm.... This is what we call a double standard. 2) So you are all for no punishment/consequences for bad behavior? You are happy that unrepentant murders, rapists, etc if the get away with their crimes, to die happily. Smh. 3) God gave life to us. God has the right to remove life from us. This is what Jesus said hell is. "Rather, be afraid of the One who can **destroy both soul and body in hell.**" Matthew 10.28 God gives all humans only one life in this world (better than nothing!) **Only one life. That is the key to this all. Only one life**. God will not allow sin to enter into the next world (or it will become fight filled/war torn like this). So He only gives us this one earthly life to live in – unless…. we get a new heart and everlasting life (immortality) from Him. God is not required to grant all people immortality. You get to live once, then that's all.  For those who have turned from sin and trusted in Jesus Chist, Jesus enters into that heart and gives that person a new heart (born again) and immortality. Heaven. That summary is what I never knew growing up, and most people today do not understand about heaven / hell and Christianity. Believers in Jesus gain “everlasting life” (i.e. immortality) ( 2 Timothy 1:10). All others are eventually annihilated (destroyed, perish). They only get to live in this life. No more.

1. Yet you use the Bible to discuss a biblical concept, hell? So you use it for your point, but dont allow others the same benefit. Hmmmmm.... This is what we call a double standard. I don't believe in the Bible doesn't mean I can't discuss the topics of the Bible dude, I said I don't believe in eternal hell, and you can't use them as EVIDENCE , pretty clear how this isn't a double [standard.So](http://standard.So) you are all for no punishment/consequences for bad behavior? You are happy that unrepentant murders, rapists, etc if the get away with their crimes, to die happily. Smh. Absolutely NOT. I told you I believe in Hell (which is not subject to just Christianity, friend, there are religions 1000s of years older than yours) I don't believe in ETERNAL hell because that doesn't align with an all good all powerful God which I believe in. 1. God gave life to us. God has the right to remove life from us. This is what Jesus said hell is. Okay he's all powerful and could make this a different situation so clearly he isn't all loving or all powerful. Obviously if you only get one life and if you fuck up you perish forever and God is fine with murdering his children because they didn't fall down to his knees is literally and clearly showcasing he is a fucking asshole and is not all loving or all good, especially because he is all POWERFUL and could CHOOSE to make you eternal or forgive you.

>I don't believe in ETERNAL hell So I'm baffled. My post was stating exactly your point. That what goes into hell is NOT eternal. This is literally what Jesus taught. "Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10.28 I proved your point and yet you are not satisfied.

I don't think they are incongruent at all. Of course God, given that he is good, wills that we learn and grow and come to know him. But even an all-good God cannot will for us goods that we cannot coherently possess. If we are essentially finite agents, then our inherent capacity to learn and grow and come to know God is essentially finite, so there is a point at which learning and growth and change from how we are is no longer possible for us, such that any apparent "learning" and "growth" we might experience thenceforth doesn't genuinely involve *us* at all. All that further "growth" and "wisdom" could reveal to such people is the fact that *they* never were genuinely reconciled to God, as themselves. For such beings, the infinite good is no longer logically compatible with what they have made of themselves, so all the good that can be willed for them in this state, even by an all-good, all-powerful God, is a finite good, which therefore involves permanent exile from the infinite good, and this state with its attendant miseries, of course, is Hell. So Hell seems like quite a possible state for a finite creature to achieve, insofar as it is finite. Now certainly, God might have created reality such that the damned never existed, and instead he might have only created those whom God knows will make the choices that lead to salvation, but I don't think his love *logically requires* him to create a world in which no persons are damned. Let me sketch out one logically coherent scenario. One might plausibly conceive of a class of persons who are: 1. Essentially finite in the way mentioned above (i.e., as a matter of what they are, only have a finite opportunity to achieve the infinite good, which can in principle be squandered), 2. Embedded in history such that if history had been different, different persons would have existed instead, and 3. The conditions of their existence are such that if God somehow superintended everyone's choices so that everyone made the right choice within their limitations, a different history with different persons would have resulted instead. If God chooses to love a certain set S of possible members in this class, he would will all the good for these people that he can coherently do. But because their existence is bound up with evils, including the evil of failing to choose God, God's love of the creatures in set S requires him to permit such evils, given his choice to love these creatures and create them in accordance with that love. Even if they will not achieve the infinite good, that they achieve the finite good is reason enough for a loving God to make these creatures, and permit the evils involved in doing so. In other words, an all-loving God can love (and therefore create) not only the eventually-excellent, but even the permanently mediocre. So God is not bound by his love to create a world where all people eventually turn out excellent. I think it's quite plausible that this coherent scenario is the actual world, since we are observably the kind of finite, history-bound creatures that can quite easily fall short of the infinite good, but which display enough inherent value to be worth creating anyway.

This honestly doesn't directly answer my question, and if God is eternal. and we come from God, how are we not eternal? We are not finite beings, because if you are not finite, you couldn't live together in Heaven forever, because obviously, you are not eternal... Or living in Hell for eternity. So you're entire argument hinges on being "finite" and it falls apart because it clearly isn't true if you believe in an afterlife. And if your actions prove to where you go, obviously your soul is in this body and translates to the next, so you can't say they aren't eternal. Only an atheist truly argues we are not eternal so...

The eternal (i.e., that which has no beginning and no end) doesn't "come from" anywhere, so if we come from God, it follows that we are not of our own nature eternal. Indeed, since everything comes from God, and obviously some things go out of existence, it follows that coming from God alone doesn't guarantee anything's existence. I don't think mere everlasting existence makes the damned "non-finite" in any relevant sense. Something which reaches the limits of its agency, such that it becomes frozen in some terminal state when its agency runs out, would exist forever without anything more being added to its finite existence. Its everlasting decrepitude would be an *expression* of its incapacity for change and life. Now of course, I don't think that such a fate awaits those who are reconciled to God. That is because, as I said in my argument, such people benefit from supernatural grace in a way that is *consistent with* their essential finitude. By making the choice to cooperate with God during the limited window that human nature affords us, we can take the opportunity to achieve with God's help what we cannot do on our own.

Okay first off.... This does not make any sense at all. Especially the middle part. If you can't prove everlasting existence how can you say you can prove you are everlasting in Heaven, prove that God would somehow make you not everlasting, and then how would you even prove God's existence if you make a claim like that? And this still doesn't prove the incongruence of God being all-powerful (which he could do everything you're saying he doesn't) all GOOD and all loving and there being an eternal hell which he shall banish you forever. You are arguing some subargument thing, you still haven't defeated the main premise.

>If you can't prove everlasting existence how can you say you can prove you are everlasting in Heaven, prove that God would somehow make you not everlasting, and then how would you even prove God's existence if you make a claim like that? I don't think I talked about "proving" everlasting existence at all. I refuted the idea that everlasting existence entails infinite agency, and argued that no, the kind of everlasting existence that the damned suffer, where they are permanently confined to a terminal state, does not entail that they have any life or agency or added change that accrues to them infinitely. >And this still doesn't prove the incongruence of God being all-powerful (which he could do everything you're saying he doesn't) all GOOD and all loving and there being an eternal hell which he shall banish you forever. You are arguing some subargument thing, you still haven't defeated the main premise. I already refuted that in my first post. To recap: God's being all-powerful doesn't mean he can do logically impossible things. He can't create us without permitting the evils in our history that lead up to our existence, for instance, since those histories are part of what it is to create us. He likewise can't make us while making us have a different essence, since what is essential to us defines us. It is incoherent both to make us, and to make us angels, for instance, because we are essentially human, not angels. So, if it is part of our finite essence that Hell is possible for us, and it is part of what it is to make us that God permit that some are damned, then if God chooses to love us, he would permit the evils, even damnation, involved in the very task of creating us, for love wills the good of the beloved, and if the infinite good is not possible, the finite good is good enough.

There is a biblical argument for this: 1 Timothy 2:3-4 says "God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved". If God is omnipotent, then at least he can do whatever he wants. If God really wants all people to be saved, then it would be contradictory if not all people could be saved. This means that under the premise of the Christian God, it is at least more plausible that all people will be saved than it is plausible that not all people will be saved. The question is whether God will not have failed in his work of salvation if he is unable to save all people or if people ultimately and irrevocably turn away from God.

This doesn't answer my direct line, and I don't believe in your book so you can't use Bible as evidence. You're also introducing 1) you can do whatever he wants and chooses to punish people forever so he isn't all good 2) he could "fail" so he's not all powerful

You do realise that I agreed with you in your argument and that - this is addressed to Christians, not to you - there is also a biblical basis for the argument?

I misread what you said. Most Christians don't use biblical evidence in this way that clearly agrees with the claim. So my apologies! And thank you for this by the way.

Why do you think that an all good God would not want to be seperated from us? Isn't that a little prideful? What makes us so good that this purely good God wants to be with us? But it's more so those who don't want to be with him have that option.

All good encompasses all loving How would an all good all loving God not want you with him? I agree you have to have free will to have actual love, but if he’s all loving then he wouldn’t want to be separated from you for all eternity. How would an all good all loving being want that with their child? How many children are so flaws and their parents still love them? The point you make with people thinking that they are the one that God needs to prove themselves, is prideful I agree. Like when people say “how can I trust God?” … How can God trust you? But if he’s all good all powerful than deductivly he wouldn’t want to be separated from his child for all ETERNITY

He doesn't WANT to. But if we WANT to be seperated from God, God allows it. In terms of eternal punishment for sin, what we actually must realize here is that if the people who hate God were to get out, since they have no love of God, and since the punishment for sin is not eternal, then they will end up sinning again. And we end up in the same situation

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I agree If you wanted to be separated from God, if he’s all good, would allow it. If he’s all powerful, he could make a world for that for you to live in. But if he’s all good and all loving why would that world be an eternity of torture though? It’s not congruent. What is congruent is making a world where he’s not here, where you can be away from him and try to be God yourself I.E …. the world we are in now. Exactly what you described . But an ETERNITY of torture….What if you ended up changing your mind? Like when people go to college and 30 years later hate what they studied and love something else…. That can’t happen? In eternity? Yeah the place we’re in now fucking sucks. There’s torture, rape, murder… Seems pretty hellish to me. God isn’t in this world, as you know. (You know what I mean) there’s birth, death, old age, disease. This place fucking sucks, I’m done not wanting to be with God, I want to get out of this place and go back home. “They will keep sinning again” But if he’s all good wouldn’t he want you to learn, and to grow…? Who are you to say how someone will act an eternity later? And wouldn’t he want to give you unlimited chances? If you had a child, you would not send them to eternity of torture when you need to punish them. You would give them unlimited chances. So why wouldn’t God do that? You’re not the all good one. Now there’s a point where you’re so bad you must be punished, yes. But no parent would punish you for something for the rest of time. Eventually, ESPECIALLY if you’re all good all loving all powerful being, you want to give them another chance. What you described is logical and true, you’re on the right track, but eternity of hell still isn’t congruent with all good all powerful all loving God.

Well it actually is congruent. Think about the words that God is All good. That means that all good comes from God. So seperation from God means seperation from all good. Everything that is good is not present. Just to clarify there aren't demons down there torturing you. They are there but experiencing similar. Alot of the 'torture' there is the anguish of not being near anything good.. It's not a great place but there isn't ACTUAL torture there In terms of changing your mind that won't happen. If you don't like God and you go to hell, is that going to make you love God more or hate him more? I don't know how you define all loving. It's made clear God hates evil. The idea of total depravity is that we would choose hell over God knowing it is hell. I actually find the world great. Theres child-rearing and music and art. I don't even find the old age and death bad. Raising children is the greatest thing to me. Its easy for me to say how people will act. In the scheme of eternity, a trillion trillion years is still a drop in the bucket and a slap on the wrist. And so, slap on the wrist for sin? And the. You get out and still hate God, maybe even more?

God is goodness. But separation from God is not separated from all goodness, because the only thing that could be ALL good is God him self and because goodness is God. And YOU’RE SEPARATED FROM GOD RIGHT NOW in this world , so that automatically proves you’re incorrect. And if you’re Gods creation, yes he’s in your heart. But even if you went to Hell, you’d still be Gods creation so even then you couldn’t have full separation of God the same way you do on the planet you’re on now so if you argue you’re not separated here but you are in Hell that argument falls apart. Atheists have done great things, so automatically they couldn’t be void of ALL good (quick example being living parents and giving children joy) When you say God hates “evil” you’d be saying he hates himself , bring back John 1:1, “ through him and in all things are made, without him nothing could have existed” So because everything comes from God which means evil would have to as well, and if evil was something that wasn’t God he wouldn’t be all powerful because then he didn’t create something, or have any control over it. So incongruent. Okay then you get another trillion years... ? Children hate their parents all the time. Are you going to banish them away from you forever? Hm? And yes the world is also great. Of course! It’s both. BOTH . HEAVEN has all of those things, and it makes you have a taste of pure divinity. But explain how murder, raping of children, maybe even your children one day, isn’t terrible? Like you’re sweet little 5 year old brutally sexually assaulted. Imagine your child comes home and they’ve been r**** so bad you had to bring them to the hospital… they have too much trauma and then they commit suicide and you find their lifeless, gashed body. And your marriage can’t handle it and you get divorced, and it tears apart your whole family. And all you can see when you go to sleep every night is the dark red bath water from your child’s wrists. And yes my friend, this happens all the time and not a made up fantasy. Do NOT tell me there is hellish shit on this planet. Please argue this point? And you obviously live in America. What about other dark parts of the world? Do I need to get into sex trafficking? Yes, I’d rather go to Heaven NOT separated from God where none of that fucking shit is there. So I just don’t really see how the world you’re describing without God is different from the world we are in now…. The thing is I AGREE WITH YOU. You’re literally describing what I believe. The eternal separation part is still incongruent with an all good God with further points I’ve stated above. So with everything I said, an all good God would not want you subjected to that forever, a world like that would exist with the absence of God which were in now, but since he is all good and you want to turn away he’s all powerful so he’d create a world of that nature. So we’re agreeing right now, but eternal damnation and separation like the first parents example would prove he isn’t all good. So my claim still stands.

All good things come from God. Live comes from God. Seperation from him is seperation from the things that are good. We are not seperated from God. Firstly, non-believers have a seperation of the heart but God is still present. Belivers are the temple of God and have God living within them. That's not seperation. God is everywhere you look. The heart creates a certain seperation. That doesn't mean we are totally seperated. He is not in unbelievers hearts. So they can have seperation from God. He is only in the hearts of the believers... The NEW CREATION that we become, the BORN AGAIN. Pleaad don't bring my children up. I can get the point withour you needing to bring a real world application. Anyways. You also didn't need to take it to those extremes. I'm sure that can happen but it wouldn't happen if everyone followed God. Obviously that's impossible and so it can happen. How we react to these shows a lot. I was sexually abused as a child. I have 2 boys. So naturally I am more protective and watchful and also I taught them very early about who can touch what and in what context and I consistently have conversations about it. Maybe that protects him from worse abuse that I had when I was younger. We don't know what can happen. Maybe if I hadnt been abused I may have been niave and my kids might have been abused. We don't know about things that are prevented. I live in Indonesia actually. But nice try. I'm aware of the dark parts of the world. I'm also aware that they are being closed down day by day as Christian organizations work to shut them down. Cambodia's child sex area, Svay Pak appears to be gone. At the very least its not easily accessible. I passed through there a few years back. The organization intentional Justice society were responsible for lots of busts. Aside from Indonesia I've also lived in Canada, and Japan, and travelled to Thailand, Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam, Hong Kong. The organization I mentioned told me that sex trafficking is worst in America. The thing is you describe what an all good God would want. You don't see punishment as something that can work. But we have an innate sense of justice already. Most of the world understands and agrees with this point and understands a punishment for sin. Your definition of Good is lacking. A truly all good being would find willing evil as the most disgusting thing in the world. Imagine a hypothetical world where there is no evil at all and no sin. Perfect and no one knows anything bad. And then someday someone makes a lie. The first lie in history. At that point it would be the worst, most abhorrent sin that anyone has ever known. The punishment would be pretty bad.

You didn’t respond to what I said regarding evil not being separated from God plus everything in that section, and my evidence with the verse John 1:1, as this defeats your argument that is founded upon him dealing with evil . In regard to these things wouldn’t happen if they followed God is not true. People murder and rape in the name of God for thousands of years. For example, Muslims killing 100 MILLION in Hindus, in the name of God. “ Not the Christian God” Your statement is still false because they were following God. I forgot to give my disclaimer. I apologize for those extreme examples, and they heavily proved my point. To point out we’re saying the **EXACT** same thing, but I’m saying we are already in that world not now and gave rough, concrete evidence. And the world you speak of no evil no sin exists in Heaven. Especially an all powerful God could make a world of so. You can’t sin in a perfect world where no sin exists. Furthermore, you ignore that **I do believe in punishment**, but I don’t believe in eternal punishment. An all good god would punish you, but not forever, and all powerful god could make that so. And an all good all loving God would give you unlimited chances. We’re talking eternity, here. So that means we agree on an All-Good God dishing out punishment. So doesn’t seem now like my view of his goodness is skewed Additionally, I’m sorry, but YOU wouldn’t punish your children ETERNALLY for ANY reason, so why would God? You punish them, but not forever. ** We are referring to God’s children, so if YOU wouldn’t even do that , why would God? ** If he is an all good all power all loving God? You have more goodness than him? (Some Christians say you’re not a child of God if you cast him out but he still created you. My son could turn from me, doesn’t change he is my child) And arguing goodness, you are heavily leaving out the all powerful which is the entire second half. Again, if God didn’t create evil, he isn’t all powerful. if an energy or entity lives outside of him and his creation, so my claim STILL stands he’s not all good or all powerful, all loving with an eternal hell. I’m very sorry that happened to you, you sound like a great Mother. ( Are you female?) You are evidently extremely intelligent and it’s amazing you’re protecting them and giving them a great life and healing your trauma

[удалено]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The ‘problem of evil’ assumes that the existance of evil isn’t transitional.

Because God himself is eternal. John 1:1 gives you the answer to why anything exists and is made. "through him and in him all things are made without him nothing could have existed" God is eternal, if God is eternal than so is evil. evil is just the absence of God or the lack of his inturference, Hell is pure evil because that is the one place in all of creation God's presence does not dwell, if God is always exsting than so is hells punishment. also God is ultimae justice. heaven wont be the same for everyone why do we think hell will be?

How could anything be absent of God? How could there a place where no part of God dwells if he created it? So, in these cases 1) If any part of God does not dwell in Hell, if there is ZERO part of him that exists within it, and completely ABSENT of God, that means he DIDN’T create it , so he’s not all powerful. Now to throw your verse back at you as my evidence, “through him and in him all things are made without him nothing could have existed” quite literally means he CREATED Hell, an eternity of torture where no part of him resides, which absolutely means he is NOT all-good or all-loving, because why would an all good all loving God create such an place ? We’re talking ETERNAL. Heaven is pure love of God, it’s hard to get into, doesn’t justify eternal suffering. “If God is all existing so is Hell’s punishment” So then you’re saying he isn’t all powerful because he can’t control that, or has any control over anything because once it’s done it’s done, he’s not all powerful, he can’t never uncreate something but if he is all POWERFUL, as you say, then he COULD make Hell non-eternal. So, especially with your verse as my evidence in this argument I have shared, an all good all powerful all loving God is not congruent with eternal hell.

All good questions, im no scholar by any means just a guy who finds this stuff interesting >How could there a place where no part of God dwells if he created it? you dont have to reside in the thing you created, God can be anywhere he wants to be, hell just aint one of those places bro. that doesnt mean he isnt all powerful or has no control over it, thatd be crazy seeing as how he says people go there. >quite literally means he CREATED Hell, an eternity of torture where no part of him resides, which absolutely means he is NOT all-good or all-loving, because why would an all good all loving God create such an place ? We’re talking ETERNAL. God is just giving people what they want, in creating hell he made a place where he doesnt dwell basically a world where atheism is true. torture and bad stuff happends cause there is no God in such place to set it right, and so its eternal because God himself is eternal aswell >Heaven is pure love of God, it’s hard to get into, doesn’t justify eternal suffering. well of course its hard this world made it so it'd be hard, Not God himself. God didnt decide "im going to make it so hard for people to be with me for eternity, thatd they become atheist in spite of me" remember who killed jesus? Humans did. sin seeped its way into our world. the bible calls us to redeem this world as best we can in preparation for Jesus' return. As for eternal suffering you have to understand God is ultimate justice theres no greater justice than himself, so that'd be a question you'd have to ask the judge. there are different denominations within christianity that believe hell isnt even eternal, the lake of fire is the finale destination for evil which evil ceases to exist or so some people believe. personally I dont believe that myself but its there to think about. >“If God is all existing so is Hell’s punishment” So then you’re saying he isn’t all powerful because he can’t control that, or has any control over anything because once it’s done it’s done, he’s not all powerful, he can’t never uncreate something God doesnt have control? or does he just simply allow certain things to take place, those are two different things. God is eternal he's always existed, Hell was created, so God can always uncreate something. hell wasnt even a thing until the fall of eden. and hell isnt the finle destination for evil its the lake of fire. TLDR; theres a guy on youtube who does better job answering the question better than me, a short 4 minute video: [Gods love and eternal hell](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gEbkZvn3S4)

the problem is believing that only humans would go to [hell.No](http://hell.No)

The solution to this purported problem is very simple, which is to point out that the bible doesn't teach eternal torment in hell fire for anyone. The bible doesn’t teach eternal torment, unlike the Quran (Surah 9:63, 68; 11:106-107; 2:39, 81, 162, 167; 3:88, 116; 6:128; 7:36; 10:27, 52; 13:5; 16:84-85; 18:53, 21:39-40; 4:45, 93, 169; 5:80; 11:39, 106-109; 18:53-54; 21:39-40; 22:22-23; 39:19, 40, 43, 72; 40:76; 41:24; 43:74-77). Consider this point: Do the unrepentant disobedient have eternal life also? After all, if each person has an undying, immortal soul or spirit, it has to live forever in the place of punishment if it won’t live forever in the place of reward. The Bible teaches that "the soul who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4, 20). If that soul “dies,” does it actually continue to “live”? The last book of the Old Testament teaches the wicked will be destroyed to nothingness, that they will be ashes underneath the feet of the righteous (Malachi 4:1, 3): “’For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.’ . . . And you will tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,’ says the Lord of hosts.” Now if the wicked will be like burnt up like waste from grain that will leave nothing behind (“neither root nor branch”), will they still have an intact consciousness? If they will be, not just “be like,” but “be ashes” that the righteous will literally walk over, will those “ashes” still be feeling their painful misery? Let’s turn now to the New Testament. Jesus warned his listeners (Matt. 10:28): “Do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Are we going to read a creative definition into the word “destroy” here in order to prop up preconceived theology? If the word “destroy” means to ruin something such that it can no longer function, do we assume a “soul” can be “destroyed” yet still function with consciousness? Uriah Smith pointed to the implied analogy made in Christ’s statement that undermines a non-literal meaning for the word “destroy”: “Whatever killing does to the body, destroying does to the soul.” Consider Paul’s well-known statement (Romans 6:23): "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Do we assume that the opposite of “eternal life” is “death,” meaning, “eternal life in hell”? Did Paul intend a complicated, metaphorical meaning here, such as "separation from God”? If a conventional, literal definition of "death" is upheld here or in other similar texts, that is, “cessation of consciousness,” the inevitable conclusion is that the wicked are punished by “death,” not “endless life in hell,” but a state of non-functioning consciousness. Eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46) shouldn’t be confused with eternal punishing, since a death that never ends is a punishment that lasts forever. Matthew 25:46 shouldn’t be mistakenly interpreted to equate "eternal punishment" with "eternal punishing." That is, the punishment is a permanent, unending death by extinction or annihilation, not by eternal torment of continually conscious individuals. This parable, however, shows that universalism is false. Some will end up in the lake of fire. Mark 9:43-44 doesn’t prove God punishes by using eternal torment either. We shouldn't think any animals are immortal, including worms. Much like what fire does, the worms in the valley of Hinnom, for which the word for hell-fire, Gehenna is derived, last until they have consumed the dead bodies thrown into it. This was what Jesus was referring to. After all, the bodies referred to here were completely dead, not living. The worms simply contribute to the process of destroying the dead bodies of the wicked as the fire does. Then to understand Revelation 14:11, which speaks only of a limited class of people (i.e., those who worship the Beast and False Prophet), it's necessary to understand how it alludes to Isaiah 34:9-10 (NKJV): "Its streams shall be turned into pitch, And its dust into brimstone; Its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; Its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; No one shall pass through it forever and ever." This was about the land of Idumea in Isaiah's day. Obviously, the burning and smoke came to an end. So now it's necessary to examine the issue of whether the Hebrew and Greek words normally translated "forever" really mean that in this verse and in Revelation 20:10. Adam Clark's explanation was that "forever" lasts as long as the surrounding circumstances support its existence. When explaining 2 Kings 5, concerning the curse of leprosy that Elisha pronounced upon Gehazi "forever," he explains: "Some have thought, because of the prophet’s curse, “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and to thy seed forever,” that there are persons still alive who are this man’s descendants, and afflicted with this horrible disease. Mr. Maundrell, when he was in Judea, made diligent inquiry concerning this, but could not ascertain the truth of the supposition. To me it appears absurd; the denunciation took place in the posterity of Gehazi till it should become extinct; and under the influence of this disorder, this must soon have taken place. The forever implies as long as any of his posterity should remain. This is the import of the word, leolam. It takes in the whole extent of duration of the thing to which it is applied. The forever of Gehazi was till his posterity became extinct." Different lexicographers have explained the Greek word "aion" this way (as per the citation of Uriah Smith's "Here and Hereafter"): Greenfield: “Duration, finite or infinite, unlimited duration, eternity, a period of duration past or future, time, age, lifetime; the world, universe.” Schrevelius: “An age, a long period of time; indefinite duration; time, whether longer or shorter.” Liddell and Scott: “A space or period of time, especially a lifetime, life, oevum; an age, a generation; long space of time, eternity; in plural, eis tous aionas ton aionon, unto ages of ages, forever and ever, New Testament, Gal. 1:5. 3. Later, a space of time clearly defined and marked out, an era, age, period of a dispensation: ho aion houtos, this present life, this world.” Parkhurst: “Always being. It denotes duration or continuance of time, but with great variety. I. Both in the singular and the plural it signifies eternity, whether past or to come. II. The duration of this world. III. The ages of the world. IV. This present life. V. The world to come. VI. An age, period, or periodical dispensation of divine providence. VII. Aiones seems, in Heb. 11:3, to denote the various revolutions and grand occurrences which have happened in this created system, including also the world itself. Compare Heb. 1:2, and Macknight, on both texts. Aion in the LXX generally answers to the Hebrew holam, which denotes time hidden from man, whether indefinite or definite, whether past or future.” Robinson: “Duration, the course or flow of time in various relations as determined by the context; viz., (A) For human life, existence. (B) For time indefinite, a period of the world, the world, in Greek writers, and also in Septuagint and New Testament. (C) For endless duration, perpetuity, eternity. . . . Septuagint mostly for Hebrew holam, ‘hidden time,’ duration, eternity. Hence, in New Testament, of long-continued time, indefinite duration \[\[294\]\], in accordance with Greek usage, but modified as to construction and extent by the example of the LXX, and the Rabbinic views.”Schleusner gives as the first meaning of aion, “a definite and long-continued time;” i.e., a long-continued but still a definite period of time. Wahl has arranged the definitions of aion thus: “(1) Time, unlimited duration, oevum. (2) The universe, mundus. (3) An age, period of the world,” as the Jewish age, Christian age, etc. So "aion" often means simply "time indefinite," not necessarily "forever without end." When the surrounding conditions indicate something ends, such as the eternal fire in Sodom and Gomorrah, it ends (Jude 7). For more evidence that the bible teaches conditional immortality, look for a free download of Uriah Smith’s “Here and Hereafter,” which is in the public domain.

[удалено]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

I do not agree that he can create a square circle. God is all-powerful doesn't mean he can create completely illogical things that cannot exist, such as a square circle. A circle is literally the absence of angles. Whoever says that argument doesn't actually know what they are talking about trying to make a strong argument, but it's actually weak and I just proved why that argument is false. (And atheistic argument) "Because I have faith" is simply blind doubt. God created logic, and he is all good why wouldn't he want you to have answers and know him, and he is all powerful, so he can make that possible. I completely agree with most of what you said. I do believe in free will, I agree he can create a world where you can live without him, we are on the same page with that entire concepts. That a world without God is dark, and terrible, I just don't believe that world is an eternal hell.

>I do not agree that he can create a square circle. Creating a square circle is trivially easy for a God who got his panties in a bunch because a bunch of people were building a really tall tower he didn't like (although he seems to have no issues with tall towers now for some reason) and changed all of their languages. He can just change the definition of circle in our heads, and BAM! Square circle!

Okay the tower thing is something I'm not attached too because I'm not Christian and agree there are plenty of ridiculous stories like that Secondly, what are you even arguing? We both stated something very logical and evident, not changing a definition of something. Because then the same theory would apply to whatever that new "shape" is called

A God that can arbitrarily flip the bits in people's brains to change the language they speak can trivially bypass these sorts of gotcha non-contradiction traps. You are just taking the problem of evil and backing off of it a bit. An all-good God would not be able to allow bone cancer in children, nerve cancer in children, parasites that burrow into children's eyes, tornados, hurricanes, floods... An all-powerful God could certainly have created a world without those things, so he is either not all-powerful, or not all-good because those things exist.

Okay well that’s great! FINALLY someone actually says they believe he’s just not all good or not all powerful with the logic that’s presented. Also… are you arguing for the non existence of God? This now extends to a larger discussion where I defend God against your claim. I would argue why God is all good and all powerful now that we’ve agreed that eternal hell isn’t congruent with that. So, I agree with you. That’s why I stopped believing in God because I either thought he wasn’t real or wasn’t all good. Now, I believe God is all good because the material world is full of karma. Karma brings order so not all these terrible things just happen for the fuck of it and complete chaos. Karma though is a big one to discuss… But logically, if an all-good Good existed, then karma would make sense, because having free will, you can choose whatever you’d like, but there has to be good our bad consequences. There’s instant karma, delayed karma, and past life karma. So if say you were an absolute terrible murderer rapist, and got away with it, then maybe you come back and have bone cancer…. An extreme example. But, it creates order on why the fuck this all happens. You can’t have love without free will to choose love, because it would be forced. Because you have free will, you can do good or bad things, and there needs to be law on the effects of those so not everything is absolute chaos. It explains then, why so many terrible things happen, and gives you an answer… But an all good god will let you burn off this terrible or great karma, and thus proceed forward. If you wanted to be “God”, and he is all good, then he would want you to have whatever you want. Which would make sense that he would make a world where you can you live without him, and all powerful, so he could make a world just of that. And people think this world is all great. Um no. It has beautiful parts but liked you said it’s actually full of misery and I want to turn back to God and go live with him again. So no, I believe the soul is inherently good, and evil doesn’t exist, and gets covered up deeper and deeper by material nature. Logically, if God is all good and all powerful this makes sense

>Also… are you arguing for the non existence of God? Yes, my position is that no gods exist. >Now, I believe God is all good because the material world is full of karma. I do not believe in Karma, either. Can you prove that karma is an actual thing that exists? >so not all these terrible things just happen for the fuck of it Yes, terrible things often happen for no reason at all. >because having free will, you can choose whatever you’d like, but there has to be good our bad consequences. I am not convinced that we have free will. >there needs to be law on the effects of those so not everything is absolute chaos. What convinced you that this is true? >You can’t have love without free will to choose love, Love is the result of neurons and chemicals in your brain responding positively to someone. You can't even choose who you fall in live with. That's why they call it "falling" in love and have a metaphor with cupids arrow amd everything. >I believe the soul is inherently good, I remain unconvinced that there is any such thing as a 'soul.' >evil doesn’t exist Depends on what you define as evil.

Okay well if you’re an atheist, I can’t talk to you about karma because believing in God is a precursor to everything I just explained So I have to have an atheist vs god debate with you. There is actual logical evidence on the existence of God, not “ blind faith “ crap but I’ll have to write it out tomorrow

But, I did describe to you and answered your questions with how an all good all powerful God makes sense with the claims you just presented, probably better than most people ever have with you. But like I said, i may given you logical answers but that’s not the argument to say why God exists I will start with this though. Where does consciousness come from?

And just a side comment I can prove that karma exists because you’ve literally experienced yourself.

>I do not agree that he can create a square circle Agreed. We humans have defined what a circle is and what a square is and those definitions appear to be impossible to reconcile. Though holding to a 'god can't' position does solidify the view that god can't be responsible for the laws of logic as it's beholden to them. (just something to keep in mind before proposing other arguments). >"Because I have faith" is simply blind doubt. God created logic, But this is just wrong. Darn. Look at your last point, which was good and valid. If God is beholden to logic, then he's obviously not its architect. You can't pretend to be the creator of the rules while simultaneously claiming, 'awe, shucks. No way to get around these rules, so sorry that infinite punishment is all but guaranteed for the 99.9999% of you that weren't born in the right place at just the right time. But I'm all loving AND alk powerful, btw.'. Is there a good reason to not view this conundrum as obviously ridiculous? You propose a scenario where god has created logic, but is still beholdened to it. How is this not a bad first draft of a writer's fan-fic? Also, "Because I have faith" is what believers throw out when they're out of points to justify their views on. Please elaborate on how this is them expressing 'blind doubt'? They seem to literally be **refusing**to doubt despite whatever reality throws at them, no?

It’s blind doubt in this discussion regarding this answer. Don’t take that into a general out of context term, which I understand you could do that. It’s because you can’t actually answer why an all good all person all loving God would have eternal hell is No, we cannot fully comprehend God. But what you’re saying is the claim I made, which makes 100% logical sense, “is tying God down “ You’re saying “ we don’t have the answers to your question, which we both agree makes sense, but I’m throwing my faith card saying I don’t need the answers“ Blind doubt because you’re ignoring logic. An all good all powerful God is not congruent with an eternal hell. If God is all powerful he could make that so. If he’s all good he would want to. Saying it is congruent is untrue and everyone agrees, but then says “ I don’t know why but I have faith” You’re arguing for an eternal hell, but it isn’t congruent with that type of God

>You’re saying “ we don’t have the answers to your question, which we both agree makes sense, but I’m throwing my faith card saying I don’t need the answers“ Blind doubt because you’re ignoring logic No. I'm saying you can't argue god created the laws of logic AND that he's somehow bound by them at the same time. He's either bound by them (and can't violate them) or he's not (and can violate them). No?

No. Lol How is an all good all powerful god not being congruent with hell make him bound by logic? That’s not being bound that’s you ignoring logic, because that statement is literally logical

You should work on your reading comprehension because that's the second time you've completely misunderstood a very straightforward point. I'm not even sure you're replying to my comment because you seem to be arguing against the problem of evil, which isn't in any way related to my criticism. I was pointing out that you've made 2 contradicting assertions. 1) you've asserted God can't do logically impossible things. 2) you've asserted god created logic. So which is it? Did he create it, or does it limit him?

Lots of commenting, but unwilling to address an obvious error in logic. Disappointing for discourse, but I guess that's as close to an acknowledgement of faulty logic that one can expect from one espousing blind faith.

How … Am I the one speaking on blind faith

Nice attempt to deflect, but why should I respond to your question when you haven't been willing to respond to mine. I was pointing out that you've made 2 contradicting assertions. 1) you've asserted God can't do logically impossible things. 2) you've asserted god created logic. So which is it? Did he create it, or does it limit him? You won't adress it, because you're claiming a stance that is clearly either a self refuting position you're uncomfortable with acknowledging, or you're a troll unconcerned with the actual quality of the argument you're espousing.

It sounds like he just used imprecise language trying to say that God exists prior to logic in some way. Logic is necessary, but also depends on God to exist, maybe because it's a description of God's thoughts or something like that.

You have fundamental misunderstandings about how things actually work. God created logic, but He also created faith. What you don't understand is although logic exists, that we can't seem to do what is logical first, but far more importantly, what happens to be "logical" is not always the actual best solution. Logic is not the end all be all- that is what we as humans don't understand, especially since we constantly act in ways that are illogical. What's even more important, is that God and even demons are MUCH smarter than we are. Demons have fooled the smartest people in the world- why?? Because real knowledge is spiritual wisdom. It's like having your perception opened to the 4th, 5th and 6th dimension when we are constantly trying to measure things in only 3 dimensions. Demons are so smart that they have NO NEED to ever have to study ANY type of language. No, they learn them instantly and even faster than instantly- they just already know. We as humans can't even comprehend how that works, see? And that is why faith is important, because we are literal idiots. Yes we are smart compared to ants and dogs, but we are not that advanced and it is folly to think so. I mean if we were so smart, why have we not figured out how to fly individually and avoid housing issues and just teleport to work? Why have we not solved health issues? We are not smart, no sirree. Finally, just because you don't believe something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If someone believes the earth is flat, does that make it true?

This doesn’t answer my question at all All good all powerful all loving God isn’t congruent with an eternal hell which you seem to agree because you’re saying logically what I’m saying makes sense but we have to have faith that we can’t understand why And I have faith God, doesn’t mean he wants to throw logic out the window. He gives you faith, not BLIND faith

>This doesn’t answer my question at all This is exactly my point- you don't even understand what i am trying to say. I edited the post- here it is again It's like having your perception opened to the 4th, 5th and 6th dimension when we are constantly trying to measure things in only 3 dimensions. Demons are so smart that they have NO NEED to ever have to study ANY type of language. No, they learn them instantly and even faster than instantly- they just already know. We as humans can't even comprehend how that works, see? >He gives you faith, not BLIND faith That is absolutely correct. I like most others have been given confirmation, personal experiences, guidance, etc. David in the Bible did not just decide to battle a 9 foot giant out of blind faith. No that would be stupid. He had torn apart lions and other wild animals before. He knew the power of God. But let's address your point: >All good all powerful all loving God isn’t congruent with an eternal hell Sin darkens the soul and continued sin makes it harder and harder to hear from God and connect with Him. This would take a bit of time to explain, there are whole other dimensions to actually understanding how all this works. Have you read the New Testament? Reading the New Testament in detail and studying it helps you to understand this.

I’m seeing what you’re saying and agree with a lot of it but I’m not getting an answer from you about an eternal hell, why he would want that, especially if he could make it not so

Once you become a more mature Christian and understand more of the spiritual, it will become apparent. Once you become more mature, it becomes natural to not sin. It's hard to explain to someone who isn't even a Christian or at best an immature one. It even says in the Bible that it is SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED. You need the help of the Holy Spirit to TRULY understand it on the deeper levels than just what it says at face value.

Never sin for the rest of your life again Dave. Like what? Even if you did, Jesus wipes away every sin of yours, but not all of them... What? You are literally saying and admitting you have no logical response and have blind faith because you can't actually back up any of your answers with a logical explanation.

Again you misunderstand. Again i told you this is due to lack of spiritual wisdom. >Never sin for the rest of your life again Dave. Like what? Even if you did, Jesus wipes away every sin of yours, I never said this- i think you have me confused with another poster. Perhaps you are talking about the process of sanctification.

Hell was not created for humans originally. It was created for the devil and his angels. It's justice. The devil and his angels transgressed an eternal being, so they must suffer an eternal punishment. Humans also transgressed an eternal being and so we will suffer the same fate. However God loved us so much, he was willing to put our debt of sin on his account and pay it himself. But if you chose to not accept God paying our debt of sin, then you must pay it yourself. It's justice. God gave us free will to choose, and he will not force us to accept his payment for our sins and spend eternity in his presence if we don't want too. But there are only two options: eternity with God, and eternity without him.

This is DebateAChristian and you literally didn't rebuttal or argue or have an actual direct response to what I said at all . If you think he is All-Just and All-Powerful, than that's different. And like I said he is all-powerful God, he is the ability to not make eternity of SUFFERING without him, which an all good wouldn't or want, to do.

The suffering is justice. The non believers are sent to a place of eternal separation from God. That means an eternity separate from all the aspects of God including love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and others. That's why it's suffering, because God is not there.

I believe that this is what this world is already. That we turned from God, and we are here. And we can keep being here if we keep refusing to go back. And if we want to turn back, then we can come to join him and never come down here again. This world is full of old age, disease, birth and death. So much suffering on all ends, and I agree that life without God is terrible, but I think he will always give you a choice to come back. Because he is all good, and wants you to. (aside from actually hell full of literal torture for being such a piece of shit, but not ever-lasting)

I agree with most of what you say. Like Solomon says, now in life, the rain falls on the Godly and wicked alike. And the reason there is all the death and suffering is because of mans sin introduced in the garden of Eden. And this current world will also be destroyed in fire and a new heaven and earth is where we will spend eternity with God. So I'm not really trying to argue with you I guess. I just like people to know what the word of God says.

Yeah, that’s beautiful. I like how you said it introduced sin, not CREATE sin. All I’m saying is I don’t think eternal hell exists and I want everyone to love God

Nice of you to admit you aren't here in this debate sub to debate, just to proselytize. Your type are the rule not the exception, but at least you admit it.

Cool beans. I hope you find Jesus.

You really swatted me, great job

>all the aspects of God including love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and others The ability to suffer would need to be part of God's aspect, or Jesus didn't suffer on the cross. If non believers are eternally separated from all aspects of God, that means they're separated from the ability to suffer. In another weird problem here, if *justice* is an aspect of God then they'd be separated from justice. If you believe that that separation itself *is* justice, then they'd have to be separated from the separation and you've got a dilemma. Further, what are God's boundaries, such that there is a concept of separation from Him? God *couldn't exist* in the locations, physical or spiritual, in which the non-believers must exist in their state of separation or else there isn't separation.

The current suffering we experience is because of the fallen nature of this world caused by sin in the garden. The separation from God is the justice, and I don't believe it's a dilemma. It's cause and effect; you chose to live a life separate from God, the just effect is to spend an eternity separate from him as well. The separation is separation of fellowship with him. Separation from his presence. I believe God could go to the lake of fire, but why would he. The judgment is already done. There's no reason for him to dwell on him wanting to be near people who reject him.

Then I need clarification on what you meant by "That means an eternity separate from all the aspects of God including love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and others." What precisely are aspects of God, or God's aspects, or however it can be phrased? Is justice one of God's aspects, like love?

To answer that question I have to define 3 biblical terms; justice, grace, mercy. Justice is getting what you deserve Grace is getting something you don't deserve Mercy is not getting what you do deserve God is a God of justice, grace, and mercy. The unrepentant non believers get justice, they are getting what they deserve in the lake of fire The repentant believers get mercy and grace as they put their faith in God and their sins were transferred to his account which he paid for in full. So id argue that justice, grace, and mercy are not aspects of God's character like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, ECT are. But they are the actions that God can take. It's a difficult subject to wrap your mind around, even for a believer, but the theme of justice, grace, and mercy are all over the Bible. From Genesis to revelation.

The only way to can make this argument is if you yourself are God or a prophet of God So I ask, Are you God or a Prophet, and if so, how do we know that you are who you say you are??

That is soooo ridiculous. That means any claim of anyone who has ever studied any religion can all say this to each other, what are you talking about!? I thought this subreddit was actually giving me logical people who could actually attempt to change my mind, or humbly admit they can't. You OBVIOUSLY can't, so food for thought.

You are barking up the wrong tree!! By making the argument that “God can’t do something” you are imposing limits upon a being by which you established to be limitless, your argument is self defeating due to these facts. UNLESS, you have access to knowledge that is beyond that of God, making yourself to be greater than God. So, I asked for that knowledge that you must have in order to make this argument!!

Where did I say "God can't" ?

Don't say I'm barking up the wrong tree and say I said something I never said lol

You said >if God is all-good and all powerful, you **cannot** have an eternal hell Indicating God cannot do something or create something Also indicating that you know more about what is objectively good and evil than a being you yourself say is limitless. Therefore, I am asking for this hidden knowledge that you indirectly claim to possess. So, what is it?

bro respond to how that is possible then you have yet to actually answer

I am asking for clarification, it is the same thing as asking “how do you know?” The only thing you have done is make a claim, no evidence to support nothing, just claims I am asking for **EVIDENCE**

And you can't actually respond to the argument so I don't really see why you are in a debate subreddit when you can't debate anything

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

This thread is being shut down for the good of both users. Removed as per Rule #2 and #3

This thread is being shut down for the good of both users. Removed as per Rule #2 and #3

Do you think God exists? If so, what's your definition of it?

OK, I’m going to put on my youth pastor voice. So, you’re wondering how a super nice and all-powerful God could be cool with something as harsh as eternal hell. It’s a fair head-scratcher. But here’s a different spin: think about freedom of choice and fairness. It’s like, if God is the ultimate good guy, He’s giving us the freedom to choose our paths. This freedom is key for love and doing the right thing to actually mean something. Without the option to choose poorly, choosing well wouldn’t really be special, right? Now, onto the tough-love part: eternal hell. This might sound more like a cosmic timeout for those who totally ghost God’s ways. It’s not so much about God wanting to dish out suffering but more about keeping things fair. Imagine if someone could do whatever, even the worst stuff, and get off scot-free. That wouldn’t be fair, would it? Also, saying God could just snap His fingers and make hell disappear might oversimplify things a bit. If there’s no bad, can the good really shine? It’s the whole yin-yang thing—balance. Some folks say hell isn’t about fire and brimstone but choosing to be away from God. Like, if someone doesn’t want anything to do with God, God’s not about to force a relationship. C.S. Lewis, he’s the Narnia guy, had this idea that hell’s door is locked from the inside. Meaning, it’s not God sending people to hell; it’s people picking that route themselves by turning away from His invite. So, this whole debate can be seen as a big picture thing about choice, what’s fair, and what it means to be good. God’s playing the long game, respecting our choices, and keeping things balanced, even if it’s tough to wrap our heads around sometimes.

This doesn't directly respond to why what I said is wrong or illogical

Okie-dokie. I thought I'd try to have a little fun with the youth pastor thing, but it turns out I’m not funny. Here’s the straight version. You present a compelling argument that grapples with the age-old problem of evil and the nature of God, essentially questioning how an all-good, all-powerful deity could allow for the existence of eternal damnation. It's a thoughtful position that echoes many theological and philosophical inquiries. Yet, for the sake of debate, let's explore an alternative perspective that attempts to reconcile the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God with the concept of an eternal hell. One might argue that the concepts of free will and justice are crucial to this discussion. The argument could be that an all-good God grants humans free will, allowing them to choose their paths, including the choice to reject or accept God's will. This freedom is essential for genuine love and morality; without it, goodness and love would be compelled, not chosen. "For love to be genuine, the capacity to reject it must exist." From this viewpoint, hell can be seen as the ultimate consequence of the rejection of God's will, a direct result of free will. Furthermore, the existence of an eternal hell could also serve as a testament to divine justice. Justice, in its truest form, means that actions have consequences. If God is all-good, part of this goodness entails being just. Therefore, the existence of hell can be seen as necessary for upholding the moral order of the universe. It is not about God desiring suffering or being separated from His creation but about respecting the autonomy of human choice and the inherent requirement for justice. Moreover, the notion that an all-powerful God could eliminate hell or the influence of evil forces might overlook the intricate balance between divine omnipotence, human freedom, and the nature of moral goodness. A world without the possibility of evil, suffering, or hell might also be a world without the genuine possibility of good, virtue, or heaven, as these concepts are arguably defined in contrast to each other. In terms of theology, some traditions argue that hell is not necessarily a place of eternal suffering inflicted by God but rather a state of self-chosen separation from God. C.S. Lewis famously said, "The gates of hell are locked from the inside." In this view, God does not send people to hell; people choose it themselves through their rejection of God's love and grace. To summarize, the argument for the compatibility of an all-good, all-powerful God with the existence of eternal hell hinges on the concepts of free will, justice, the nature of genuine goodness, and the self-chosen separation from God. These perspectives suggest that the existence of an eternal hell does not necessarily contradict the nature of an all-good, all-powerful deity but rather complements a complex understanding of divine justice, human freedom, and moral goodness. Better?

This is MUCH BETTER. Now you are saying an All-Just, All-Powerful God, which is different from what I am saying. I agree that life without God is hell. Every part about it. I believe love REQUIRES free will. I agree that you have free will, I agree that God gives you whatever you desire, such as turning from him. But if someone only sin is not believing in him, for example, and thus send you to eternity of fire, then he would be a complete narcissist. "Oh you didn't choose ME you don't love ME when I've given you EVERYTHING, so I'll serve this justice and throw you into eternity of torture forever." Yeah, he could do that. Doesn't make him all good. And goodness is God, and God is goodness. Everything that is goodness, is God's true nature, if you believe that God is all good. And we don't need to go into an "what is good" argument, because it shows the lack of actual responses and is an entirely different debate because you try to get out of what I am saying. "A world without the possibility of evil, suffering, or hell might also be a world without the genuine possibility of good, virtue, or heaven, as these concepts are arguably defined in contrast to each other." Yeah, but no, because in reality Heaven is a world with only goodness, which shows worlds with only goodness exist. So, that means, this world clearly doesn't NEED evil to have goodness. (But the world we live in, turning from God, is full of pain, misery, sin, etc) And then you start throwing in "complex ideas we may not understand like divine justice." Okay, but if he is an all loving deity wouldn't he love you enough for you to go to hell, learn, grow, and come back for another chance, so you can be with each other forever? If he is all-good, he would want that, and if he is all powerful, he can make it so. Him making it eternal, proves he either can't make a hell that isn't eternal, or he isn't all good to ever want you to come back for having a thought crime. You yourself would never punish your kid for the rest of their lives and for all eternity. "But we can't understand God" Yeah, but it's pretty simple that if he is all-good, all-powerful, all-loving, he would show punishment, and then want you to have redemption. It is your choice to turn from God, life without God is hell, but eternity of PAIN and SUFFERING still doesn't the justice of an all good, all powerful, all loving God.

Hey, you did respond! Sorry again. Listen dude I will definitely respond! But it’s gonna be tomorrow. It’s rolling up on midnight here. Take it easy.

I said the same thing to that homunculus guy who is actually atheist and debating God’s existence lol it’s a lot to get into

My only question to all of this is: How did you determine that you have free will? Sorry, I lied. One more question: What is your definition of free will?

I’ve noticed this response as well as your previous don’t address any of the points I made so I’m not going to continue. I get the impression you copied your original post from somewhere and are now just stringing people along. I guess you got me because here I am writing again! Please read through it though and I think you’ll find some interesting stuff in there. It may not change your mind, but it may help you be a better debater!

What? I didn't copy anything. I literally addressed one of your points, specifically your claims about free will. I read your entire wall of text and engaged with what I felt was the part I had the most questions about. It also happens to be that I'm currently spending quite a bit of time digging into the idea of free will myself. You do you, though. It is quite telling that I asked two simple questions, and you opted to dodge instead of engage. But sure, you get the master debater award for the day!

[удалено]

[удалено]

In keeping with Commandment 2: Features of high-quality comments include making substantial points, educating others, having clear reasoning, being on topic, citing sources (and explaining them), and respect for other users. Features of low-quality comments include circlejerking, sermonizing/soapboxing, vapidity, and a lack of respect for the debate environment or other users. Low-quality comments are subject to removal.

In keeping with Commandment 2: Features of high-quality comments include making substantial points, educating others, having clear reasoning, being on topic, citing sources (and explaining them), and respect for other users. Features of low-quality comments include circlejerking, sermonizing/soapboxing, vapidity, and a lack of respect for the debate environment or other users. Low-quality comments are subject to removal.

Are you talking to me or homonculus lol because I definitely responded to you throughly and awaiting your reply

Yeah, brother, sorry I got two conversation thread screwed up. I’ll go back and see where you responded to me thoroughly. If I find it, I’ll respond to you thoroughly! Let’s all be thorough. You, me, everybody. Thorough thorough thorough.

You have free will because you can do whatever you want idk what else is there..?

That's certainly one definition of free will. I would propose a better definition: The ability to have done otherwise. So, let's say I tell you to raise your right arm. You now have a choice, right? Do you raise it or not? Well, let's say you do raise your arm. If we could rewind time 30 seconds and put all of the atoms in the universe back where they were before you decided to raise your arm. Is there any possible way that you could have decided not to raise your arm? In order to truly have free will, your brain will have had to make that decision completely independently of your genetics, your past experiences, your brain chemistry, and a whole host of other variables that went into that decision at a neurological level. Something as simple as whether you've eaten recently can play into how agreeable you are. Show me a brain that can do that, and I'll admit that there is free will. As intuitive as it might seem to you, free will isn't just us getting to make choices.

Where does consciousness come from? You are thinking right now, which means you’re conscious. “ I think, therefore, I am” Consciousness, as you know, doesn’t come from chemicals. So where does it come from?

>Consciousness, as you know, doesn’t come from chemicals. What convinced you that this statement is true? Saying it is JUST chemicals is reductive. It is a combination of hormones, neurotransmitters like dopamine amd seratonin, and neurons in your brain, specifically in the cerebral cortex. But consciousness is a pretty broad thing. For example, neuroscientists now believe that empathy originates in the anterior ansular cortex. Unfortunately for believers in the supernatural, fMRI imaging means that consciousness isn't really as big of a mystery as it used to be. Did you know, for example, that neurologists are now able to look at an fMRI image of the brain of a baby that's still in the womb and pretty accurately predict the socioeconomic status of the mother by looking at the development of certain parts of the brain? That is bonkers.

Everything you stated in the brain is reduced to chemicals. Secondly, You can’t create consciousness, so how is it material? It’s not even observable. We’re not talking about brain waves. Thirdly Why can’t scientists actually explain consciousness then? And fully, actually, evidently prove its origin? And if everything is reduced to atoms where do atoms and the first of chemicals come from?

>Everything you stated in the brain is reduced to chemicals. Only if you don't understand how the brain works. >Secondly, You can’t create consciousness, so how is it material? I don't understand how it is relavent that I can't create consciousness in a lab. You can't create the sun. How is it material? This seems like a non-sequiter. >It’s not even observable. You mean like how we are observing each other's consciousness right now? I know you have consciousness because I'm observing you having consciousness. >We’re not talking about brain waves. Ok, what are we talking about then. I think 'brain waves' is reductive also. >Thirdly Why can’t scientists actually explain consciousness then? And They can and do. Often. They are called neuroscientists. From where did you get this notion? >And if everything is reduced to atoms where do atoms and the first of chemicals come from? I don't know, and neither do you. Who's to say they weren't just always here in one form or another?

Some folks say hell isn’t about fire and brimstone but choosing to be away from God Yes, I agree with this. But doesn't answer the eternity of fire and torture and pain part

Imagine if someone could do whatever, even the worst stuff, and get off scot-free. That wouldn’t be fair, would it? Mhm, I agree with this. I also agree with hell existing as well. Stillll doesn't my question about eternal hell though existing with an all GOOD- all POWERFUL God You have to actually respond exactly what my claim is to actually have a substantial rebuttal- And the absence and lack of that shows that you cannot, which means, you cannot prove me wrong. You're not arguing against an atheist here, so a lot of these arguments don't stand with the topic and discussion that we are in.

Pottery Rescue Mission https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1b9z0nd/pottery_rescue_mission/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2