The Problem of Hell Redux

I will now attempt to show the problems with my opponents position; Con has basically replied to almost all my objections with an all purpose response: "you can't apply 'human' ethics to God." I'll call this the "divine immunity" defense. Some might look at this as a convenient away to escape any ethical criticism leveled at the depiction of God my opponent holds to - I happen to agree - but I will go ahead and show the weaknesses of this position. Barring that, precious little has been done to nullify my objections. If this defense fails, his case fails. I just want to point out that Con reasons that because Christians belief the bible is infallible that means that any scriptural references are infallible. That is a simple matter of logic. One doesn't follow from that premise is that any use of scriptural references is infallible; one may be simply misusing or misinterpreting scripture. The scripture may be infallible but the interpreter is not. Additionally, simply appealing to sometimes ambiguous scripture isn't going to do the work Con wants it to; he must support his interpretations and answer philosophical objections.The Divine Immunity DefenseI want to note the contradiction that has been running through nearly all of Con's rounds. On one hand, Con tries to say 'human' rationality and ethics don't apply to God. On the other hand, he attempts to reason about God from scripture; this a paradigm case of human rationality applying to God no matter how limited humans' rationality is. Additionally, he argued that my ethical objections don't work because ethics only applies to humans in this case. But look at what Con has been arguing - he's saying that God would be moral and just if he did condemn some to eternal, conscious torment. These pronouncements are ethical and moral judgements. If Con were thoroughly consistent Con would not be using moral and ethical statements to describe how God acts because, remember, Con thinks 'human' ethics don't apply to God.Con appeals to dictionary definition of 'ethics' in order to show that 'human' ethics doesn't apply to God. I suspect his reasoning relies on an equivocation because ethics talks about a PERSON'S behavior. An essential claim to Christianity is that God is a PERSONAL being. [1] So even on that definition we could say that we can talk about ethics in relation to God. Only if Con equivocates and says that person = human being would his argument even get off the ground. It may be that all human beings are persons but it doesn't follow from this claim that all persons are human beings.The biggest problem with this divine immunity approach is the following: it strips moral terms of all their meaning when applied to God. Every Christian wants to say that God is good, just, fair, etc. If we say God is good there has to be something we mean by that otherwise we are just speaking incoherent nonsense and gibberish about God.As J.S. Mill (an atheist) astutely writes:"To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good? To assert in words what we do not think in meaning, is as suitable a definition as can be given of a moral falsehood. Besides, suppose that certain unknown attributes are ascribed to the Deity in a religion the external evidences of which are so conclusive to my mind, as effectually to convince me that it comes from God. Unless I believe God to possess the same moral attributes which I find, in however inferior a degree, in a good man, what ground of assurance have I of God's veracity?"Similarly, Eric Reitan (a Christian) writes:"Consider hellists—by which I mean those who think that God consigns some of the creatures He loves to an eternity of excruciating torment, torment that does them absolutely no good. While some hellists seek to offer a 'theodicy' of hell—that is, an account of why such divine activity is compatible with the goodness of God—others retreat behind the cloak of divine mystery. They point out that God’s ways are not our ways, that divine goodness transcends our comprehension, and that it is therefore simply presumptuous for anyone to question the (supposedly clear) biblical teaching that God expresses his perfect goodness in part by subjecting some creatures to unremitting anguish more extreme than we can possibly fathom....In short, if we shroud God in total mystery, the claim the God is good becomes compatible with any motives or behaviors or commandments we might possibly attribute to God. But if that is right, what are we saying when we say God is good? If saying this about God is compatible with asserting simply anything else about God--if nothing is either implied or excluded when we say it--are we really saying anything at all?" [3]Both put their finger on an important problem. They both point out that for us to even consider God good we need to mean something when we say the word "good". If categorically unethical and evil things - like either torturing or allowing people to damn themselves forever - are considered "good" you've simply stripped the terms of saying anything significant. Saying that God's goodness is infinitely greater than ours (a true claim) is not the same as saying God's "goodness" is completely different than ours (a false claim).David Baggett and Jerry Walls (two proponents of a sophisticated moral argument for God's existence) stress that God's goodness must be "recognizable" in order for our ascriptions of good to make sense. [4] If God can perform those unethical and evil things - like I have maintained the doctrine of hell is (which as gone virtually unchallenged - then God is not "recognizably good". Additionally, even the bible seems to tell against the latter proposition. Paul writes, "when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." (Rom. 2:14-15) This seems to show that we have at least some grasp on moral truths and this presumably comes from God.The Free-Will DefenseHere Con just repeats his assertions that human beings would choose a fate of eternal, conscious torment without interacting with my arguments I set forth in round 3. Extend my arguments.The Heart-Hardening/Memory Wipe DefenseHere again Con just repeats his assertions without interacting with the point I made about love essentially involving caring about other loved ones' well being.Thanks to Con nonetheless for debating and thanks to the bystanders for reading.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au... [3] http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com...[4] http://books.google.com...