The Paradox of Hell

As Pro's initial arguments were largely reiterated in round 3, I will only rebut his round 3 iteration and not his round 2 iteration. 'This doesn't change the fact that it's a punishment.'I concur, but a negative punishment is considered to be more humane than a direct punishment. For example, when reprimanding a child it is kinder to take away their privileges rather than spank them.'No, but He did create all of the circumstances that lead to Hell with full knowledge of what would happen.'Agreed, but as I will go on to argue, the circumstances that could lead some people to Hell are better than the absence of them.'Why ultimate suffering?'Let us consider what hell actually is. It is the self-exclusion from God. As God is the greatest good, self-exclusion from the greatest good is going to necessarily be the greatest suffering. 'Why eternal suffering?'It is eternal because those within hell have chosen it to be eternal. C.S Lewis writes that the inescapable nature of hell is not of God's desire, but those within hell have chosen to be in eternal self-exclusion from God. As he puts it, 'the doors of hell are locked on the inside'. 'I would expect that most damned souls would be more than willing to embrace God after the briefest instant in Hell'The very reason they are in hell is that they are willing to be excluded from God - hell is what they choose so it does not make sense to say that they would be willing to then accept God after occupying hell. For example, if someone chooses to not go to university then the experience of not being in university isn't going to make them want to go to university.'lack of a second chance ''Reincarnation so that a soul that might otherwise be damned has another chance'In our earthly life we have a LOT of chances, if one does not repent of their sins given all the chances that they have in life then they have, in effect, missed their chance. Furthermore, redemption is only possible prior to punishment - for example someone can have their punishment reduced if they plead guilty and express regret for their crime, but they cannot have their punishment reduced if they express regret during their punishment.'Annihilation of souls rather than damnation is one alternative'Annihilation would not be justified because sinners do not choose to be annihilated, whereas they do choose to occupy a state without God's presence.'There are biblical examples where God interferes with free will'It is probable that the writers of the Old Testament attributed God's influence on people to God whereas He might have not done so. The Old Testament 's literal veracity is doubted even by many Christians - Pro fails to prove that God has actually interfered with free will.'Add omniscience into the equation and it becomes difficult to understand why God would ever create a person who would make the wrong choice.'If God did not choose to make particular people because they would ultimately choose Hell, then he would be depriving these people of the free will to decide to reject God. As free-will is a good, depriving someone of free will is a bad and so it would be incoherent to suppose that a wholly-good God would choose not to create someone if He knew they would ultimately reject him. Furthermore, choosing to embrace God is a good thing, but if the world was entirely full of people who embraced God then the value of doing so would be diminished. For example, if everyone in a class got A grades, the value of an A grade would be diminished in comparison to a class where only a few people got A grades.'Why allow the choice at all?'I am well aware that we have physical limitations to our free will, but what matters is that we have the free will to either accept or reject God.Why do we need this?If someone could not possibly reject God, then it would not be a willing relationship between man and God. Let me put it this way: when you are dating a woman that you love, you would not try and hypnotise her into loving you back, you would give them the option to either return the love or reject it. If you are in a loving relationship with someone that could not have possibly not have been in that relationship, then the fact that she is in the relationship is meaningless. This is because the free choice to embrace God is a great good - if that was the only option then it would not be a choice because a choice requires multiple possible options.'It was his choice to step where he did but he had no knowledge of the mine.'This analogy is not relevant to Hell because people do know that they are rejecting God when they commit a mortal sin and do not repent, as part of the definition of a mortal sin is that the sinner is fully aware of its seriousness. Using my opponent's analogy, the soldier would know that there is a mine and steps on it nonetheless - and would be justly blamed.'We cannot comprehend the infinite.'Agreed, but we can comprehend being without God (which is what hell is). The fact that we cannot comprehend an infinite time is irrelevant because if we choose to be without God then we accept that we would be without God for an indefinite period of time. Moreover, whilst I cannot comprehend eternity in a temporal sense, I can still know that whether it is desirable or undesirable. For example, I cannot comprehend being in a desert for eternity, but I can still appreciate the fact that I would probably not desire such an occurrence.'A variety of different religions claim to have The Truth and if you don't follow Their Way then you're going to Hell.'Not if we accept a omnist view of religion - where we accept that all religions are acceptance of the same God but from different perspectives. Furthermore, there is no reason why hell cannot be solely reserved to those who knowingly and deliberately reject God. This would not condemn followers of the wrong religions because they believe they are accepting God and by believing this, they are choosing to accept God.'What all-loving God would hold you responsible for your actions under those circumstances?'An all-loving God would hold you responsible for the actions that are knowingly committed whilst fully knowing that what you are doing is a rejection of God. If this is not the case then the sin is only a venial sin and therefore is not punishable by hell (1).'Hell has no purpose because that suffering doesn't actually do anything.'Its purpose is to contain the souls who reject God - if hell did not exist then it would be depriving them of making the free-choice to be excluded from God.'Hell is Empty'I never made such an assertion.'What sort of paradise is it when you will spend the rest of eternity knowing that everybody who isn't present is suffering ultimate torment in Hell?'You can appreciate paradise because you would have the divinely-assured knowledge that the suffering is freely-chosen and justly delivered. To wish that the denizens of hell were in heaven would be to wish that they would not be punished - but if those who mortally sin go unpunished then this is unjust. Justice is a great good - if hell did not exist then justice could not be administered to those who deserve it. They would also know that the self-exclusion from God is freely chosen. To use an example, I would be sympathetic for someone who was being excluded from an party, but this sympathy would cease if I knew that they willingly chose not to attend the party.'God hasn't put in a public appearance in several millennia.'If God did appear then it would provide undeniable evidence of His existence. But this would reduce theism to a matter of accepting undeniable evidence and would remove any aspect of faith. Faith is a great good, and so God is morally justified in maintaining some 'epistemic distance'. To conclude, I have shown that all Pro's arguments do not actually render the existence of God and hell as irreconcilable, and so he has not yet fulfilled his burden of proof. (1)http://dhspriory.org...