Hell is immoral and unjustified.

"Pro argues that I asserted without evidence that God is omniscient and morally perfect, but that is part of the very definition of God; any being who isn't omniscient and morally perfect can"t be God. What"s more, if he demands that I prove God has these qualities, would that not be a subject for a different debate? Pro, are we debating the morality of hell on the assumption that God exists, or are we debating the morality of hell AND the question of whether or not God exists?" A major point I have been trying to make in this debate is that not only is Hell immoral and unjust, but it is also completely incompatible with a loving and just God. Nowhere in this debate did I make the assumption that God is morally perfect and simultaneously chooses to send people to hell. I wouldn't even attempt to argue for my side if we had assumed that. It would be a non-sequitur for me to argue that God is morally perfect and sends people to Hell, and that Hell is immoral. Rather I have attempted to prove that if there is a morally perfect and omniscient God, he wouldn't do something as irrational and immoral as torturing a person forever for not loving him. Instead of addressing the substance of my arguments, Con has repeatedly appealed to authority and said that I am only a mere human who cannot question God. So I state again: any and all arguments from authority should be considered invalid in this debate. If you appeal to authority again, Con, I can only assume that it is an attempt to sidestep providing logical and moral reasons for why Hell is just. "Now Pro claims torturing someone for not loving you is immoral. How do you decide what is moral and what is not? This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Because you don"t like it, then it"s wrong. You make your own feelings the measure of justice and truth. But if God attaches greater importance to loving him than he does to your personal happiness, what is it that makes him wrong for doing so?" Any emotional arguments I have employed have been attempts to appeal to empathy and compassion, things that I think are essential components in moral decisions. But just like empathy and compassion, proper use of logic is also essential to arriving at the right conclusion that will reduce suffering. So, I will examine the ways in which Hell is illogical. The purpose of punishment is usually to reform the criminal"s behavior so that they will not commit the crime again. The punishment must not be too soft nor severe, or else the criminal will slip back into negative behaviors and continue to commit crimes and supposed sins against God. Con has freely admitted that when people are in Hell, they come to despise God for what he"s done to them. This in turn makes it so that they are much more sinful than they were before, constantly cursing God for torturing them without end. If Hell is really God"s plan to eliminate sin, then he is an absurdly incompetent deity. God could actually eliminate sin by annihilating their existence or forgiving them, but instead he chooses to perpetuate sin in this way. In this way, we can see that Hell neither teaches the victim a lesson nor rehabilitates their behavior. So what logical reason could God possibly have for torturing people for all of eternity? Hell doesn't teach people a lesson, doesn't reform their behavior, doesn't stop them from sinning, and most importantly inhumanely tortures the victim for all of eternity. The only logical reasons for God to torture them would be to inflict retribution or to satisfy his own sadism. But you cannot logically justify the idea that never ending torture is fair retribution for choosing the wrong God to worship. The only victim in the "crime" of choosing the wrong God would be God. Do you really think he would be so vindictive and hateful to torture the person rather than forgive them for making a mistake? The one and only reason for why God would logically choose to torture someone forever for not loving him would be to satisfy his own vengeful sadism. Since sadism is not compatible with a morally perfect God, we can conclude that God would never choose to torture anyone eternally. "Pro thinks that if God appeared to all mankind that 98% of them would become Christians. They would become theists, but that doesn't show they will become Christians." Okay, let"s say that the number of people who become real Christians doesn't actually jump up to 98 percent. If just one single person were to become a real Christian because of God revealing himself, wouldn't that be a success? But I think that we can assume that a massive amount of people would become real Christians if God were to give compelling and conclusive evidence. So why doesn't he? Why doesn't he give conclusive evidence to non-believers who are searching through this lottery of 10,000 religions? It"s just simply illogical to base people"s eternal fates on a bet they made in a lottery. "I wonder, do you think that rejecting your claim that hell is unjust is an "understandable mistake" on my part? I doubt you do, because you made the information available to me. And God has made the information about himself available to the whole world not just in the Bible, but by sending missionaries, using TV broadcasts, the internet, tracts, and even visions and dreams, and conscience." Rejecting the claim that Hell is unjust is an understandable mistake in the sense that you do not deserve to be tortured eternally for it. Much like believing that Hell is moral does not warrant you to be tortured eternally, choosing the wrong version of God to believe does not warrant eternal torture either. Just because I made the information available to you does not mean that I get to torture you for being wrong. "where do these moral values we apprehend come from? Well, it is only because an eternal being (God) has always existed, that such moral values exist, and God prefers these values because they are part of his very nature. It is because God is loving that love is objectively good, it is because God is just that justice is objectively good. And these moral values were not invented by God; so God didn"t arbitrarily decide to make any action morally right or wrong." Logic and empathy is and always has been the source of morality. Even if there is a God, then he prefers certain moral values because of logic and empathy. You have said that God does not arbitrarily choose what is right and wrong, so I assume he must use logic and empathy to arrive at the right moral conclusion. I've said it before and I will say it again: might does not make right. If you assert that the only way we can have objective morality anywhere is by having an omnipotent deity, then you are again falsely equating power with morality. Why would it logically follow that a universe without God has no morality? Would the presence of an omnipotent deity somehow make morality objective and valid? If you think that morality comes from authority, the only reason why people should logically behave morally would be out of threat of punishment and bribe of reward. If the collective mass"s goal is to keep suffering to a minimal level, then there is always a right and objective answer to moral questions. The presence of a deity doesn't change that. And furthermore, Hell is a definitive case of injustice that tortures people without end for making the wrong bet. And just because many people have been wrong about morality throughout history does not mean that humans can"t come to the right conclusion. We have been wrong about so many different scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that we will never arrive at a correct scientific theory. It only means that the problem is complex and difficult. Occasionally, we get the right answer to these difficult problems. Just like science, there is a correct moral decision in every case that will offer the least amount of suffering to parties involved. Moral decisions are difficult, but the right decision exists independent of human opinion and God. If one has no empathy however, then there would be no logical reason for them to reduce the suffering of other"s except for their own benefit. Morality stems off of suffering and empathy. "How do you know, that a being with infinitely more wisdom and knowledge than you, could not have reasons unknown to you, why he created hell in the first place? How can a speck of dust in this vast universe argue with God as if we comprehend his outworking of the bigger picture." Con"s argument here is basically saying God has a reason; it"s just hidden from us! Instead of providing any actual reasons for why people should be tortured, Con has asserted many times that we just have to trust God even though he doesn't give us reasons. I hope I don"t have to explain why this is absurd. In conclusion: Hell is unjust and immoral because it tortures people for eternity based on a bet they made in the lottery of religions when the answer was unclear and obscure. It is also an irrational punishment that would undoubtedly make the victim more sinful, psychotic, and hateful towards God. There is no logical reason for why God would do this except to satisfy his own sadistic and evil desires to torture people. God could offer them some way of redemption, but instead he chooses to confine people to an infinitely harsh punishment. Unfortunately, the only reason I have learned of why Con believes in this is because he asserts that God is morally perfect and chooses to send people to Hell, so sending people to Hell must be a moral action. If Con cannot present any reasons for why this should happen that doesn't reference God's authority and moral perfection, then I must assume that he has no reason outside of that. So Con, provide objective and logical reasons for why Hell is a fair punishment for people choosing the wrong religion. And please, don't appeal to authority. Thanks to all who have read this, and thank you to Con.