Resolved: If God exists, God would have sufficient reason to send people to hell

Again, it is my first time. I have complied with my opponent's request in the comment section and I have waited to post my response. My opponent says that we must assume the God exists and hell exists and ask if the question is that God should send anyone there. Well, I would not necessarily assume that hell exists on the basis of the resolution, but that point is irrelevant. My opponent's criticism of p1 exposes a flaw of mine when I was constructing this case. I was hoping for a debate that used "hell" in the context of scripture, but I assumed this from the beginning and did not mention it in my opening speech, and thus my opponent did not have to operate in that context. The definition I provided does say punishment instead of torture, and if one does not look at the ways hell is usually used, then yes, punishment does not necessitate torture. I shall concede such a point, but I will maintain that if hell is a place where people are punished through torture, then a perfectly good God cannot send people to hell. If my opponent does decide to look at hell through a scriptural context, then I argue that people are tortured in hell. According to www. merriam-webster. com, the definition of torture is: Main Entry: 1tor•ture Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chərFunction: noun Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle Date: 1540 1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain 2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure {1} The Bible makes it clear that that there will be intense pain and suffering in hell. Even if there is not literally fire in hell, it is still a bad place to be. Christiananswers. net supports a symbolic interpretation of hell, but the website actually maintains that the suffering in hell is worse that the suffering that fire could subject one to. Christiananswers. net writes, "Will there literally be a burning fire in Hell? The fact of the matter is that if this is just symbolic language, it's bad enough for me, and certainly the reality will be worse than the symbol. And fire isn't very funny. If you've ever been badly burned, as I was as a little boy, you never forget it. And if the Lord is simply using symbolic language, how much more terrible must the reality be? "{2} The Bible's definition of hell seems to make it clear that hell is torture, and thus Yahweh is not perfectly good. No legal system burns people with fire (or the equivalent) day and night forever. Therefore, it is very improbable, if not impossible, that God would send anyone to hell as understood in this context. If my opponent wishes to make a perfectly good God compatible with torture (and argue that such a good being would in fact torture), my opponent must give a very good reason for it. In response to p2, my opponent says that even in the Bible, hell is not infinite punishment. Instead, my opponent claims that the damned will be judged again. My opponent has cited no bible verse for this, and anyway the Bible is rather clear on the eternity of hell. The Catholic Encyclopedia cites many biblical verses that point towards this conclusion {3}. Also, my definition of hell contains the word "everlasting". This word should not need to be defined, but I will define it anyway. Main Entry: 1ev•er•last•ing Pronunciation: \ˌe-vər-ˈlas-tiŋFunction: adjective Date: 13th century 1 : lasting or enduring through all time : eternal 2 a (1) : continuing for a long time or indefinitely (2) : having or being flowers or foliage that retain form or color for a long time when dried b : tediously persistent {4} Due to this fact, p2 is valid. It appears as if my opponent has two choices when approaching my propositions: 1. Analyze them using the strict definition of hell from Merriam-Webster, or 2. Look at the definition of hell through a scriptural context and argue against my propositions. My opponent cannot pick and choose which approach to use when addressing my propositions; he must be consistent with his methodology. Using option 1 may effectively shield him from the implications of p1, but through this method he cannot shield himself from the implications of p2. Option 2 gives him a chance to argue that hell is not for eternity, but then he must address my argument that hell is torture according to scripture. I am not sure how relevant hi objection to p3 and p4 are; it seems to only affirm my propositions. However, his explanation of God sending people to hell does not necessarily include nonbelievers and those that insult it going to hell, so these two propositions do not really affect you. His objection to p5 is that a father that loves his son can punish that son by grounding him when he has done something wrong. This objection is inadequate; it is clear from the context that the "suffering" I refer to is a much greater degree of suffering than simply grounding a child. Also, let's look at the word "perpetuate" and the word "perpetual". Main Entry: per•pet•u•ate Pronunciation: \pər-ˈpe-chə-ˌwātFunction: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): per•pet•u•at•ed; per•pet•u•at•ing Etymology: Latin perpetuatus, past participle of perpetuare, from perpetuus Date: 1530 : to make perpetual or cause to last indefinitely {5} Main Entry: per•pet•u•al Pronunciation: \pər-ˈpe-chə-wəl, -chəl; -ˈpech-wəlFunction: adjective Etymology: Middle English perpetuel, from Anglo-French, from Latin perpetuus uninterrupted, from per- through + petere to go to — more at feather Date: 14th century 1 a : continuing forever : everlasting b (1) : valid for all time (2) : holding (as an office) for life or for an unlimited time 2 : occurring continually : indefinitely long-continued {6} Would a father cause punishment to last forever? Furthermore, would a father use torture as a punishment (such as burning the child, using thumbscrews, water-boarding, etc. )? My opponent has asserted that my definition of God is logically contradictory. However, he has not said in what way. If he does not point out a logical contradiction and allow me to deal with it, this assertion should not be considered to be true. Furthermore, even if God is above logic, is it reasonable to believe that he would act in a way that sends people to hell? Would such a being be considered perfectly good and worthy of worship? He says that God would have sufficient reason to send people to hell if they committed sins, but this does not seem to justify torture or punishment for an infinite amount of time. He claims that we share the burden of proof because I am making a claim against the norm. However, it is absurd to determine the burden of proof this way. The burden should be decided by who is making the claim. His argument is refuted for the same reason that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. I do make some claims, and on those issues I have the burden of proof. However, as con, all I have to be is against the resolution. I need not necessarily say the statement is false; I merely need to say that I have not been presented with a good reason to believe the resolution, and therefore con is justified in being against accepting the resolution. {1}. http://www.merriam-webster.com... {2}. http://www.christiananswers.net... {3}. http://www.newadvent.org... {4}. http://www.merriam-webster.com... {5}. http://www.merriam-webster.com...