The Problem of Evil and Hell

Thank you for a swift response. I'm highly impressed with your arguments and am very glad to be debating you on the problem of evil and the problem of hell. -->Rebuttal to Theodicy<-- My partners theodicy is basically the doctrine of original sin. However, the major problem is that it is contradicted in the Bible. Indeed, it is unjust to be punished for the sins of Adam and Eve. Says who? Well, if one must appeal to authority, the Bible! Proposition 1: God is love. (Agape) [1] Proposition 2: Agape keeps no record of wrong. (1 Corinthians 13:5, "It (love) is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. NIV)Axiom 1: If proposition 1 is true, then God cannot keep any record of wrong.Axiom 2: Consequently, God has no ground to stand on to punish those who rebel against him; especially if it is a wrong that was committed by a different person thousands of years ago. Proposition 3: "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20) Proposition 4: (Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."Axiom 3: Consequently, is unjust for God to put the original sin of Adam and Eve upon us. Conclusion: The theodicy fails because God cannot keep any record of wrong and the doctrine of original sin is contradicted in the Bible. -->Case<--I. Problem of Hell I wish to take a moment to expand on the Problem of Hel that I couldn't finish in the previous round. Proposition 1: There exists a God who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Axiom 1: Consequently, this God is able to: (1) Save people from hell; (2) Create a punishment that is not the equivalent of hell; (3) Not create people who is going to hell; and (4) Already knows and purposefully decided who is and who is not going to hell (per the doctrine of predestination). Contention 1: The porportion argument Imagine someone who died during the holocaust; for example, Anne Frank. Anne Frank is in hell (at least according to Christian doctrine) because she rejected Christ as her saviour. Likewise, Adolf Hitler is in hell for the same reason. Anne Frank died roughly one month before her killer, Adolf Hitler. Consequently, she has been punished for the same sins as Adolf Hitler for a longer period of time. Contention 2: Finite sins, infinite punishment?What crime deserves an eternity of punishment? It is impossible for one to commit an infinite amount of sins because we are finite. Consequently, we are given a far greater punishment than one is warranted. Putting it all together: Why hell is wrong My partner is sure to respond, "Who says the above is wrong?" Well, first I wish to argue against the Divine Command Theory (DCT). I) The dillema 1. Ether (a) The good is willed by God because it is Good; or (b) The good is good because it is willed be God. 2. If 1a is true, then good is independent of God's will.3. If the above is true, then God is not the creator of good and evil.4. If 1b is true, then good is contingent and subjective to God's will. 4. If the above is true, there is no objective standards of morality with the DCT. 5. The DCT is false. So, we go back to the original question: What creates morality (this is very important to the subject of hell and the PoE). I contend that morality has a naturalistic orgin which can be explained from the framework of Evolutionary Psychology - a discipine formally known as Sociaobiology.In his book, The Rejection of Pascal's Wager, Paul Tobin makes the following notes: [2] Human Universals Most Likely Evolutionary Mechanism Affection Expressed and Felt Kin Selection & Reciprocal AltruismAltruism and cooperation Attachment Kin Selection & Reciprocal AltruismFamilial bonding and friendship Classification of Kin Kin SelectionBasis for knowing degree of relatedness Empathy Kin Selection & Reciprocal AltruismMoral sense Distinguishing Good and Bad Reciprocal AltruismFor judgment, distinguishing cooperators from cheaters Fairness Reciprocal AltruismFor equitable reciprocity Food sharing Kin Selection & Reciprocal AltruismFor altruism and cooperation Generosity Admired Reciprocal AltruismFinding out who can be trusted in transactions Judging Others Reciprocal AltruismTo ensure that cheats are known. Prohibition of Murder Reciprocal AltruismPrevention of the ultimate cheating Pride Reciprocal AltruismTo enforce the individual's action in his group Redress of Wrongs Reciprocal AltruismTo make cheating unattractive Shame Reciprocal AltruismTo prevent individual from resorting to cheating From the above chart, it is clear that our moral values was brought about by process of evolution. There is a mathematical formulat to describe this phenomina: C<BxR C=Cost of helpingB=Benefit to the recipientR=Degree of genetic relationship between altruist and recipient. This equation tells us that as long as the cost to the altruist is less than the benefit to recipient times the degree of related between the true, the act of altruism makes sense. [3]Conclusion: Morality is nothing more than our evolutionary instincts working together. These same ideas were found in other animals as well. Asking "why should one be moral" is the equivalent of asking "why should one feel hungry." Paul Tobin once again hits the nail on the head: "Moraity is a part of human nature and...an effective adaptation. Why should we forego morality any more than we should put out our eyes? [4]Conclusion Based upon the values that humans share via evolution and instincts, we can determine what is right and what is wrong. II. Problem of Unecessary Suffering (evil). I. The argument map The map is simply a visual aid to the readers, to me, and to you. You do not have to rebut the entire map! Once again, I'm out of time and room.-->References<--1. Strong's Concordence. 2. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...;3. Ibid. 4. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...;