The Problem of Evil and Hell

TheodicyPro's rebuttal commits the fallacy of high redefinition. [1] He takes our very broad definition of round 1 and cherry picks one attribute in an attempt to show an inconsistency. It is true: God is love. However, it is also true: God is not just love.To say that God is love is to say that He is the standard of love, just as he is the standard of good and just. He is the answer to the question, "What is love?" It does not necessitate that God exhibits love and only love in every circumstance. God can be the standard of love even when he chooses not to pardon the wicked. Paul does not say God keeps no records of wrongs in 1 Corinthians 13. Love keeps no records of wrong. Pail implies there is a choice in the matter, especially given the greater context of the chapter. God can practice love or justice and still be the standard of both.Even so, God does erase records of wrongs, not only through the blood of Jesus Christ, but also in the Old Testament in the very same chapter of Ezekiel quoted by Pro himself: But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. (Ezekiel 18:21, ESV) This just shows how badly Pro has taken Ezekiel out of context. God was rebuking the use of a proverb that insisted on the punishment of fathers for their sons' iniquities and vice versa. God was correcting their bad theology, reminding them that everyone is punished for their own sins.The doctrine of original sin, on the other hand, stems from the curse. Is it fair that we all are under Adam's curse? If Adam was in charge of the earth and humanity, then yes. Just as a teenager is unable to take advantage of her driver's license because her brother wrecked the family car, we are unable to avoid sins. Sin is not damaging to just ourselves, it affects all others around us. When I sin, it teaches my children to sin. I sin because I am corrupt. The consequence of sin is that it corrupts my children. Thus, they will sin, and so on. That is the natural consequence of Adam choosing to be his own master. Thanks to Ezekiel I take comfort that God will not irrationally punish my daughters for my sins.Pro also quotes Deuteronomy out of context. This is a book of Israel's laws, prohibiting them from executing sons for their fathers' law breaking and vice versa. This has nothing to do with the character of God whatsoever. This is just poor scholarship on Pro's part.My opponent should apply proper hermeneutics if he wishes to use Christian theodicy to advance his case.The Problem of HellPro argues that hell is a punishment disproportionate to the crime and that no amount of finite sins deserves infinite punishment.Per my definition of hell in round one, hell is a "state of separation from God." Hell is merely the continuation in the afterlife of one's state in this life. Hell is, by definition, exactly what rebellious sinners are asking for: existence on their own terms, without God. Hell is not out of proportion because it's not about the tally of sins but about the state of rebellion as a whole. The fact that it is eternal is also appropriate since there are two choices for eternity: hell or heaven. If there is only heaven, then God is not just. If there is only hell, then God is not loving.What about the "lack of evidence?" The Bible teaches that everyone knows God exists in their heart. Maybe that doesn't meet Pro's standard of justice, but if it meets God's standard, then it matters little. The question is: what makes Microsuck's standard of justice the standard?Fairness is getting no less than what you deserve. Since Adam's revolution against God, we all are separated from God. We are in partial hell even now with God's partial separation. Evil and hell are bedfellows. Both exist because we want to be our own masters. Thus, we all deserve to have what we want for all eternity. So, yes, going to hell is fair for us all. It is grace—indeed, Agape love—that allows even one of us to enter into heaven. God shows abundant charity in inviting rebels into his kingdom. This leaves us with a critical choice. We can complain about how God reigns and reject him based on our fancies about what is just, or we can accept his utterly free gift of Heaven.The DilemmaI agree that if "good is willed by God because it is good," then good is independent of God. However, it is utter fallacy to say that if "good is good because it is willed be [sic] God," then morality loses its objectivity. This reasoning commits the fallacy of equivocation. In P4 Pro writes, "If 1b is true, then good is contingent and subjective to God's will." The term subjective here means "particular to a given person;" [2] in this case, God. However, in the next premise, the conclusion is that morality is therefore subjective in the philosophical sense, meaning "existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself."The problem here is that Pro completely ignores the fact that anything subjective to God is made objective because He is both universal and invariant. Just because something is subjective to Him does not make it suddenly subjective to the cosmos, especially considering that he transcends our cosmos. Only by accepting Pro's sleight of hand can such conclusions be obtained.Sociobiological EthicsPaul Tobin's exercise in explaining human ethics within the purview of evolution hardly sets the stage for the kind of objective system of morality needed to show that God objectively does not exist. There are four problems with this.First, this ethical system only deals with moral assessment, not moral obligation. The chart shows how fairness, sharing, etc. might have evolved due to social pressures, but absolutely nothing about that chart indicates that one ought to be fair or share. Yet the Problems of Evil and Hell demand a system of objective moral obligation for these arguments to show that God is really unjust.Second, even if we extend this moral system to include some kind of hidden moral obligation such as "one is morally obligated to advance the social unit," it still cannot be applied to the Problems of Evil and Hell because the truth of this moral system is wholly contingent upon the truth of God's existence. If God exists, then Tobin's evolutionary explanation of societal ethics is categorically false. As a result, it begs the question for this debate.Third, this moral system is entirely inadequate. Imagine a poor individual on the brink of starvation who mugs an individual for money. Tobin's ethical system condones the man's behavior because the cost of altruism is too high for the starving man. Even incarceration is not too great a cost because prisoners get three meals a day in the slammer. Yet, in real life, no one would condone the man's behavior. Not the courts. Not society. I daresay, not Microsuck. What we have is an arbitrary moral code that attempts to sidestep the critical issues facing the Problems of Evil and Hell.Fourth, this system focuses on altruism, costs and benefits. But I criticized the Problem of Evil for needing an objective way of determining real unnecessary suffering. Tobin's chart never mentions suffering at all, so Pro has not responded to the most damning evidence against the Problem of Evil.Pro's BurdenIn the previous round, I argued that Pro needs to objectively demonstrate real unnecessary suffering in order to argue that God really doesn't exist. In this round, I am arguing that he needs to objectively demonstrate that Hell is really unjust and not just some kind of personal opinion on the matter. Until we get real answers to both critical questions, then no amount of pontification over theodicies can save his position.Sources http://www.fallacyfiles.org... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...