There is no hell

Resolution - There is no hellA affirmative statement like that could be stated in almost any regard"There is not God""There is no hell""Zeus does not exist"The issue is that you need objective evidence to make a claim like that, not circumstantial but empirical and verifiable evidence. This is not an argument from probability, so we are not arguing the likelihood of a Hells existence. We are specifically debating that Hell does not existMy adversary is Pro so he has the BOP to shown beyond a doubt hell does not exist, not that it does probably not exist. If he shows it probably does not exist he looses, he must show that it does not exist with objective and empirical evidence. Per the rules I will debate the issues he requested I debate and then offer refutations. C1) God ExistsI can lay out arguments to show that God possibly exists and it is likely that he exists. I do not need to show that he exists because that is not my burden of proof. My adversary has the BOP to show that Hell exists all around, I need simply show that a God possibly exists. Note : Even if I am incapable of doing this, this does not effect this debate. The BOP is still on him to show that hell does not exist. Points for GodA basic outline for the KCA[P1] Everything that exists has a cause[P2] The universe began to exist[C] The universe has a cause. What we can see is that cause is most likely the big bang. We know the big bang exists because of CMBR [1]. So that brings up the question what caused the CMBR, then one caused the matter that caused it. This premise can be applied to anything back until we could trace the origin of time. Everything was created at the time of the big bang, so if matter was created at the time of the big bang what caused the big bang. At some point it is logical to believe a deistic God created the universe. It may not be probable, but it is a logical belief. C2) Hell Essentially a place of eternal torment for sinners. This could be literally or metaphorically. The issue with this is that my adversary must limit down the scope of a specific hell and show that it exists. There an infinite number of possible hells. In his last round he chose to narrow this down to a christian hell. He defined it as punishment God gives usThe first thing i would like to note is that he did not make hell a tangible place. This could very well be a concept in the mind. Meaning hell could be different in every possible mind. [P1] If hell is not tangible it can vary in each mind, and has infinite possibilities[P2] according to my adversary hell is not tangible[P3] There could be an infinite number of possible hells. C3) God is loving Love is subjective both to us and non tangible beings if they exist. The definition is relative, there is no way to define Gods perception of love. C4) Possibility Possibility - The fact or state of being possible. Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that hell exists is possible. There is no empirical evidence to show that it does not. Most people can only logically assume that hell does not exist. This does not mean that it is true, it means that there is a high probability that hell may not exist. So we can acknowledge that hell could exist, because there is no way to show that hell existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence.Therefore hell existing is a possibility. My adversary must show some type of empirical evidence that shows that hell does not exist. If he is able to show this the existence of hell will contradict known facts, therefore it would not be possible. There is no evidence to support this claim however, and there is no empirical evidence to show that it does not existtherefore hell could possibly exist. R1) Hell is a punishmentI addressed most of this in C2R2) Choice of SinWe chose to sin because of free will. God made us with the intent of choosing him openly, not forcing us to worship him because he could make us. He was well aware most of us would sin and that others would accept him. If he is intangible and omnipotent, he knows all and sees all so everything is already preordained. Punishment would equate to justiceand justice is based on perception. In this case the perception of the non tangible being that is labeled as God. This is the same concept as love. We have no idea what is love and justice to him, but it could be any number of possible things. R3) Some thoughts he hadThis entire thing is false and can be answered with free will. We sin openly because God allows us to make our own choices. In all honesty this is non applicable to this debate. You wind this up by saying the idea of going to hell is wrongThat is a non sequitur in this type of debate. By saying that someone going to hell is wrong, you are admitting a hell exists which concedes this point to me. Whether or not is wrong is entirely irreverent because we are discussing whether it exists, not whether it is a just punishment. ConcussionMy adversary has not shown that hell does not exist. I have shown that it could possibly exist. He has not upheld his bop/ [1] http://www.astro.ucla.edu...