The Paradox of Hell

Thanks Pro! :)'The punishment is infinite so the terms "more" and "less" don't apply.'They do apply when one considers the nature of the punishment - we can reasonably assert that infinite positive punishment is less humane than infinite negative punishment, simply by extrapolating from the premise that negative punishment is generally more humane than positive punishment.'Not a one of them ever has second thoughts about eternal suffering not being preferable to hanging out with the All-Mighty?'Someone can only accept forgiveness for their sins if they repent of them, but given all the chances in their earthly life that they have, why would they suddenly repent in hell? One could argue that the suffering would cause people to repent, but this is a crucial misunderstanding of what repentance is. Repentance is showing remorse and sorrow for the sin that they have committed - 'repenting' to try and escape hell is not true repentance because the person is only doing so out of selfish avoidance of suffering and not true selfless remorse for their sins. Therefore it is not possible to repent in hell because any attempt to repent would not be motivated by remorse. As one cannot repent, they cannot accept forgiveness and leave hell.'to the ultimate privation of hell but then not seek an alternative is completely implausible.'Even if the inhabitants of hell do seek an alternative, it would not be just to grant that alternative because it would, as I have explained above, only be sought by those who are doing so for reasons of self-pity.'I hope I never find you on my parole board.'That's the point, those in hell could not be granted parole because the only reason they would come up in front of a parole board would be because they want to avoid the suffering of hell. Why is this? If one goes through their entire lives rejecting God when He is rewarding them (with the experience of life), why would they embrace God when He is punishing them? For example, if a child rejects their mother when the mother is being kind them, it is hardly conceivable that the child would embrace their mother when she is punishing him.To use the quoted example, one cannot be granted parole if their reason for seeking parole is that they dislike prison.'Depriving an individual of a single choice is not the same as depriving them of all choice.'Agreed, but that 'single choice' is the most important choice. Otherwise human relationships with God would be meaningless because there would be no free will involved in choosing to embrace God.'That the value of embracing God might be diminished does not offset the consequences of denying God.'It seems an odd concept that the reward of the good people who embrace God should be diminished in order to decrease the punishment of the bad people who would reject God.'Given the consequences I'd hypnotize her in an instant. Any thoughts of a relationship take a distant second place to an eternity of torment.'If someone truly believed that the woman would suffer more if she rejected them, there is still no moral justification for hypnotising her into not rejecting them. Why? Because firstly the relationship would not be meaningful and secondly, the woman has a right to choose her own relationships regardless if whether she chooses the relationships that make her suffer. To prevent her from making her own choices is to violate her dignity as a free person.'Both God and Hell are infinite. We cannot comprehend either of those. Our minds simply aren't capable.''If God is infinite then Hell is infinite privation. We can't comprehend either.'To return to the analogy, I cannot comprehend the experience of being blown up by a land-mine, but I am still fully aware of the seriousness of standing on a land mine. Just because we cannot presently comprehend experiencing something, we can still appreciate its seriousness.'we can't comprehend the nature of who we have transgressed against'That does not diminish responsibility - I cannot comprehend what it is like to be an animal but that does not mean that I can abuse animals.'The omnist view is reassuringly reasonable but makes complete hash of trying to figure out what is and isn't a sin. Most contradict each other on some pretty important points'I agree there are contradictions, but they all largely agree on the fundamental nature of God, so if you are accepting God in any religion you are accepting the God behind all religions if we take the omnist view.Some sins may be sins in some religions and some may be perfectly okay in others, but these are generally quite insignificant differences. Furthermore, as I have suggested that only mortal sins are punishable by hell, and that mortal sins are willingly committed, one will only go to hell if they knowingly worship the wrong religion. There is a tiny amount of people who do this, if any.'Except that followers of the wrong religions aren't accepting God.'Not if we take the omnist view, which is compatible with the existence of hell. This is therefore a moot point.'No mere mortal could be reasonably punished with an eternity of ultimate torment for rejecting a Deity for whom the evidence was so badly muddled.'But the choice is still there. I can embrace God or I can reject him. If we reject God by either denying his existence or by committing a mortal sin, the fact that the evidence for God is somewhat unclear is irrelevant to this choice. If we reject God based on lack of evidence then we are still making a choice to accept the veracity of empirical observation.What I am trying to say is that, despite the fact that there is a lot of confusion about God, his actual nature and being is clear to see and not difficult to accept - 84% of the world have done so (1). The specific differences between religions may cause confusion as to which religion is correct, but one can still believe in the same God whether they are a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian!'Freely-chosen or not, ultimate suffering for all eternity for a finite transgression that the offender is incapable of comprehending fails to meet any standard of justice.'But the transgression is not finite; God is infinitely good and so rejecting him is infinitely bad. An infinitely bad act warrants an infinite punishment, which is what hell is. This is justice according to reason.'Yet, as I mentioned, there are Biblical precedents for God doing exactly that.'There's a reason that these are called miracles; they are exceptions to the norm of epistemic distance. Exceptions do not make examples, otherwise one is committing the 'appeal to extremes' logical fallacy.Epistemic distance is still maintained, as a whole, even if there are occasional miracles. This is because there is still room for faith. If divine 'showing off' was commonplace then there would be no epistemic distance whatsoever.'nor has it been demonstrated that the benefits of faith offset the detriments of eternal torment.'It is because faith comes hand-in-hand with free-will - if theism was a matter of undeniable evidence then there would be no free-will to reject God, just as there is no free-will to reject current undeniable scientific facts such as the fact that the sky is blue.I have explained in rounds 2 & 3 that free will is a greater good than the evil of the potential to be without God, and as faith is necessary in order to ensure free-will, faith is a greater good.Conclusions:1. A wholly-good God is compatible with Hell because Hell gives us the free will to either accept of reject God.2. Without hell, we are forced to be with God after death - yet being with God should be a matter of free-choice.3. Hell is a freely-chosen privation of God - it does not seem to follow that it renders God's existence paradoxical.Therefore, it is possible to conceive of a benevolent God existing as well as hell existing, so the paradox is non-sequitor.(1)http://www.washingtontimes.com...