Better than Deserved

Thanks Pro. I. Preface I appreciate my opponent's views on what 'Better than deserved' means to her, but my position in this debate is to negate this, and I feel that because that the very notion that one does not deserve more is to be happy with less than the fruits of your labor. Why should we settle for less than we deserve? There is a reason why charities for less-well off people exist, as we do not think they are getting a fair treatment out of life, and that we can help improve that. So I hold two views, first that the resolution is false, and second the resolution is harmful, but this debate is only about the former. II. Presuppositions My opponents arguments seem to lean on the presupposition that just living, being conscious, is a gift in itself. That this alone is intrinsically valuable. I find this problematic, and most my arguments have ignored this presupposition, as it is one that Pro has not supported until now, where the only line of argumentation is that we are born for a purpose, which is for God's glory. However it is not at all apparent how the purpose of something makes it intrinsically valuable. By analogy let's take a spade. A spade alone usually has an intrinsic purpose when built, which is to dig, indeed that is it's design. But take exactly the same physical spade which was not designed for any particular purpose, it just exists in it's current form. Now, it is not at all spare t why either of these spades would be more valuable, or intrinsically 'better' than the other, they are the same entity after all, just the original purpose for both was different. It it not at all obvious why something built for a purpose should make it any more valuable than one that was not. The same seems to apply for humans. In fact, even if we were to assume that purpose does imbue some value into life, it would not be an intrinsic value, but an extrinsic one, which is one prescribe by God. In essence we only have value because of what God has given us, in essence, our lives have value because we are God's property, or the efforts of God's labor. This however ignores the rights and justice of the individual itself, and their ability to give value to their own lives, and hence, in an unfair position. As it is God's rights over a mans life over the man's rights over his own life. This is akin to ownership & slavery. III. Better than deserved? Please note that after death we are faced with two possibilities: 1. Eternity with God in heaven 2. Eternal torment in hell Pro has attested to both of these. Now consider, in either if these cases, we still have our immortal soul, or our life. But in the latter example we are subject to hopeless torture and torment in the fires of hell, such pain and suffering would be endured that a very strong argument can be made in favor of non-existance is preferable to 'living' in hell for all eternity. If we accept this assertion, which prima facie seems very plausible, then it follows that life is not an infinitely intrinsically good condition, since there are circumstances where non-existence is more preferable to existence/life/free will. Remember we have two theologically justified situations: We follow God's law and accept God & Jesus and can go to heaven We do not do 1 and go to hell If we accept that Pro has done #1 and is rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, then it does not demonstrate the truth of the resolution, as it can be viewed that life in heaven is a repayment for Pro's good deeds. Of course I think that Pro is very much the type of person who would qualify for this but that is besides the point. If Pro has done #2 and goes to hell, then my previous argument that hell is an unjustifiably severe punishment, and anyone that a priori will go there is logically worse off than deserved (as argued in the last round). Therefore, the only scenario that would fulfil the resolution of 'Better than deserved' is if Pro, or anyone has fulfilled the conditions for #2, but are likely to be rewarded with #1. So far there are two qualifiers that Pro and I have put forth that would entitle her to go to hell. #1 Her Sins in this life #2 Original Sin Now, I have dealt with #2 in detail last round. The fact that we were never asked to be born, and since every human born is born with original sin (from Adam and Eve), then it clearly follows that every person is born entitled to receive eternal punishment in hell without having committed a single good or evil act. This very clearly is a case of being much worse off than deserved, unless Pro is to argue that eternal torment in hell is intrinsically good and favourable to non-existence, which seems unlikely. By arguing against #2 alone I have already demonstrated this resolution to be false since we are all born with an unfair burden. Against #1 I have argued that moral values have changed over time, for both Christians and non-Christians. It is not black and white where we strictly are in obedience of God's law. I accept that God would have granted us free will to choose whether or not to accept god' slaw and abide by it, but it does not solve this dilemma I have already given. Since free will is another thing that God has unwillingly burdened us with, and without Free Will then we wouldn't be blameable for our actions, and thus not subject to punishment. If we were subject able to punishment without free will, then it clearly would be a malevolent, unjust existence. There are many things that influence free will, a person's mental well-being, with conditions such as depression, anxiety, trauma, enlightenment and even diet have effects on a person's ability and tendency to choose. Yet all these conditions we would regard as examples of free will. If this was true then why are we designed by God such that his law isn't something we are naturally automatically compelled to do. We aren't automatically compelled to never steal, to never kill, to always keep the sabbath holy. There are many life situations where these Sins are a compulsion to us, such as in self defence, or self-preservation or of a loved one. It is a sin to steal to prevent your child from starving to death, for example. Most people would arguably do this if given the choice, yet it is against God's law. God, being omnipotent, could have created us to have a positive compulsion to do good. There would still be choice, and we could choose to do differently, but by similar mental drives to what are given by the mental conditions listed above God could have done things differently, and better for human's sake. IV. Conundrum: God has put us in an unjustifiably unfair position, of forcing us to fulfil unreasonably high standards which could never be accomplished short of salvation, by burdening us further with original sin, and by having us born without our permission, and created in such a way that living up to his standards is near-impossible. I contend that anyone suffering in hell is suffering an unjustifiably large punishment, and is much worse off than deserved even if we account for non-existance. Pro needs to demonstrate she is receiving an unjustifiably high reward for her current position, and show that the presuppositions behind these are sound. Until then, back to Pro!