The Paradox of Hell

I will be arguing today that the existence of hell, which is defined as a state of eternal torment, does not render an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly-good God in a necessary state of non-existence. Hell and God can co-exist. Before I jump into the logical form of my argument, I will elaborate as to the exact nature of the 'eternal torment'. Saint John-Paul II defined hell as: "a state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed" (1) This view of hell highlights that the 'eternal torment' is not of a retributive nature; God does not have to punish sinners out of a sense of vengeance or vindictiveness, what is key is that the eternal torment is self-caused. It is a negative punishment; which 'involves taking something good or desirable away' (2). This is the case with Hell as it is not a direct, 'fire-and-brimstone' tortuous punishment but simply the absence of God's presence. I will continue by citing the theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, who wrote that: "we must see that hell is not an object that is 'full' or 'empty' of human individuals, but a possibility that is not 'created' by God but in any case by the free individuals who choose it". (3) In other words, hell is not a geographic place but a self-manifested state. The implications of this is that God did not create hell, which further shows that hell's existence is not contradictory to God's existence. As hell is self-exclusion from God, it is reasonable to assert that it is a state of being without God. It does not need to be any more than this. So I postulate that the existence of a state where one can willingly choose to be without God does not render the existence of a wholly-good God paradoxical. I will now present the logical form of my argument: P1: Occupation of hell is a result of one's free will P2: A wholly-good God would allow us the consequences of our free will C: Therefore, a wholly-good God would allow hell to be occupied Premise 1 is justified because we have the free will to either embrace or reject God. The existence of willing theists and atheists are testimony to this. Mortally sinning against others and yourself is also considered to be a rejection of God, for you are sinning against those who God loves and has created. If you die without repenting this sin, then you have chosen to reject God in the same way that a mortal sin is, by definition, freely chosen and known to be a rejection of God. In order to justify the second premise I must prove that it is a greater good for God to allow us to have free will than to not have free will, for if the consequences of our freely-chosen acts are not made manifest then we do not really have free will at all. This is because free-will is a matter of deliberately changing potential events into actual events - not just the intention to do so. The alternative; in which we do not have free will, is a world where there is no actual purpose to human life. We would just be puppets to do God's will and have no value as spiritual beings. Let me illustrate this with an example; a child is strapped in a robotic suit that can only be controlled by someone in an external control room - the child has no control. The child is then sent out into the world and always controlled in such a way as he always chooses the right decision. But does the child actually grow as a person from this experience? Of course not; one can only live a fulfilling life if they are actually given responsibility for their decisions. This responsibility can only be actualised if ourselves or others are allowed to be affected by our actions. Now I have justified both premises, the conclusion deductively follows. To conclude, the existence of hell does not necessarily contradict the existence of the God of classical theism. As my burden of proof is to prove this assertion, I have fulfilled my burden of proof in this round. I will refrain from refuting my opponent's arguments until round 3, as per the debate rules. (1) Catechism 1033 (2) http://psychology.about.com... (2) Mulder, Jack : 'Kierkegaard and the Catholic Tradition: Conflict and Dialogue' 2010