The Paradox of Hell

I look forward to a lively and interesting exchange. Polytheism has an advantage over monotheism in that various different aspects of our world may be assigned to various different deities. Monotheism runs into problems when trying to ascribe all of the various phenomena of our world to a single all-mighty deity. This problem is exacerbated by the necessity of making this deity wear the white hat of an all-loving god while simultaneously trying to account for suffering in our world. This is referred to as the Problem of Evil, widely attributed to Epicurus [1]. The Paradox of Hell is similar to the Problem of Evil with the distinction that, unlike suffering in our mortal world, the evil in the instance of Hell is both infinitely worse and much more directly God's responsibility. Put simply: - God is omnipotent. He can do anything that he desires. - God is omniscient. He knows everything that transpires. - God is omnibenevolent. He is all-loving. Given these conditions it is reasonable to expect that an omnibenevolent deity would seek to minimize evil, seeking it out via omniscience and eradicating it via omnipotence. However: - Hell exists and is a state of eternal torment for damned souls. The exact nature of the sin(s) necessary for damnation varies depending on the religion but they aren't terribly important. The existence of Hell as a potential destination of the souls of mortals is maximum evil. Not only does God allow this evil to continue but, as the Supreme Creator, God is directly responsible for its existence, or for the conditions leading to its existence at the very least. This is in direct contradiction with the attributes of God listed above, hence the paradox. Several solutions are commonly put forward in an attempt to resolve this paradox and I'd like to address a few of them now. I hope that my opponent will forgive and correct any errors I might make. Free Will Some would argue that God granted us free will as this was a better existence than as deterministic automata. As such, Hell is not a destination to which God sends the damned but rather the consequence of the ultimate expression of free will, the rejection of God. Aside from sounding a lot like blaming the victim, there are a few objections to this position: - A mortal and fallible mind has just been given a choice it can't fully appreciate and asked to make it based on woefully incomplete information. The outcome will have infinite and irrevocable consequences. These are not the actions of an all-loving God so they fail to resolve the paradox. - Free will is limited. I cannot teleport, I cannot divine the future, I cannot touch my elbow to my nose. I cannot believe that I do not exist, that up is down or that 1+1=0. It seems reasonable that God could have made Creation so that we had free will but with limitations that would preclude damnation. This clearly isn't the case. Insufficient Information Another line of argument is that mortal minds can't comprehend how the All-Mighty works and that the possibility of Hell really is the best possible option. Just as a small child might resent being sent to sit in the corner for a time-out, humans don't fully comprehend that, as bad as Hell sounds, it could be worse. This boils down to just another 'God works in mysterious ways. ' cop-out but some more concrete objections include: - Infinite torment for all eternity is pretty much the definition of as bad as it can possibly get. - God could imbue us with the understanding of why Hell is necessary. We Could Do Better Let's face it, there's room for improvement: - A better class of afterlife. The Greeks had a much more nuanced afterlife in the 8th century BC [2]. Absolute torment for all eternity is solely punitive. Hell has no redemptive qualities as damned souls can never leave. This all just makes God look unjust, making it easier to disbelieve in God and thus more likely that more people will end up in Hell. - Annihilationism [3]. Souls that would otherwise be damned just vanish. Surely that's more humane and what are you going to do with them otherwise? Keep them in a state of eternal torment? - Better PR. Let's be honest, God's message didn't arrive by the most direct or most reliable of methods. Flaming letters fifty feet tall or some similar miracle would make believer out of even the most obdurate of atheists. A lot fewer people would be hell-bound. Yes, I know, that all sounds incredibly presumptuous. That's the point. If a mere mortal like me can come up with simple but effective ways to reduce the suffering inherent in Hell then the All-Mighty certainly can. Hell is incompatible with an all-loving God. One of them has got to go. Sources [1] Philosophy of Religion: Epicurus . http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... [2] Map of the Underworld - Showing the Descents of Odysseus and Aeneas . http://www.maicar.com... [3] Bauckham, R (1978) Universalism: A Historical Survey. Themelios 4(2): 47-54. . http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk...