Hell is immoral and unjustified.

Thank you, Daley. I will try to address as many points you made within the 10,000 character max. "However, God does not need to draw every person in the world to him for being omniscient, he knows those who would obey him out of love for who he is, and these he draws. So knowing those whose hearts would reject him anyway justifies God in not going to the extremes my opponent suggests he should go to to prove himself, like appearing in the sky to the whole world and say "I am God." In fact, Pro only assumes without proof this would convince everyone." Con has suggested that God does not give extremely compelling evidence to people (like appearing in front of them for a conversation) because God knows that they would reject him anyway. He suggests that everyone who goes to Hell is only there because God didn't seek them, which in turn is because these people would supposedly never love him under any circumstance. But you cannot deny that if God were to appear to everyone in the world and talk to them, the percentage of Christians would skyrocket to a huge majority of the world. Sure, there would still be that 1 or 2 percent of people who would deny such compelling evidence, but approximately 98 percent or more would not even question the existence of God if he would only appear to them. You don't see many people questioning whether or not their friends exist because people directly see them and have conversations for good amounts of time. You will find that it would be the most logical choice for God to appear and put an end to this pointless lottery of religions. If he only were to talk to us, the Christian population would skyrocket until there were only a few doubters left. But the only reason God doesn't give compelling and indisputable evidence is because he is either illogical, doesn't care about the souls he will save if he simply talks to them, or isn't real in the first place. I believe in the latter. "And if people only obey God for the rewards, or to escape punishment, their worship will still be meaningless in his eyes. You don't want your children to pretend that they love you, do you?" Let's explore this a little deeper and compare God's relationship with us to a Father's relationship with his child. So for this analogy, I am a Father who has a son. I leave my son in a house with a number of my other children who are all scrambling to find out which version of Daddy is the right one. When they grow up to leave the house for me to judge them, I judge them based upon which version of me they chose to worship. I don't really judge them based upon whether my offspring behaved morally or raped or killed anyone, but instead I judge them based upon whether they love the correct version of me. If they love the correct version of me, every sin is forgiven. When I find that they have chosen the right book and the right version, they get to come to a party for the rest of their lives. When I find that they chose the wrong book and the wrong version to worship and love, I put them in the oven and cook them for the rest of their lives. I don't kill them. I don't forgive them for an understandable mistake. And I don't ever let them die to leave their torment. In fact, I specifically created that oven so that my children will never die while they are burning alive. I don't let them out of this oven ever, because any attempt for the children to redeem themselves is just an attempt to avoid torture. Any sane human being would say that in this situation, the father is a sick sadistic human being who is in no way morally perfect. So why do we believe differently about God? I don't understand how simply not loving him could ever logically or morally warrant being tortured for the rest of time. The only person who deserves torture in this scenario is the father who tortured his children himself. It doesn't matter whether the father claims to be morally perfect or not; Torturing someone for not loving you is one of the most arbitrary, cruel, and repulsively immoral acts one could ever do to a person. There is no reason that a supposedly morally perfect being would ever decide to torture anyone for eternity much less for an insignificant thing like someone not loving the being. "I even find it odd that an atheist should argue that hell is immoral, because if God didn't exist there would be no immorality or morality, for human opinions of right and wrong would only the accidental spin-offs of socio-biological evolution, and I have no reason to think that a morality developed by animals ought to be correct. Morality without God would not be objective, so that you could justly condemn anyone." Does God prefer his moral values because they are objectively good, or are those moral values simply good because he prefers them? If he prefers his moral values because they are objectively good, then morality exists independent of God. This means that objective moral values exist whether or not God exists. If you instead believe that moral values are good simply because God prefers them, then you are subscribing to Divine Command Theory and falsely equating power with morality. Just because God has omnipotence does not mean in any sense that what he does is good. Might does not make right. To even suggest that power and authority dictate morality is to say that morality is flexible and only determined by whoever has power. If God preferred torturing babies rather than comforting them, then that would be good according to Divine Command Theory. DCT is completely wrong because morality is not determined by authority. If objective morality does exist, then it exists with its logical reasons independently of God. My basis for justice in a world without God is a mixture of logic and consideration for suffering. In order to have the right kind of morality, a person must be completely logical and most take into account the suffering of people. Viewing morality this way, one can logically come to the conclusion that torturing someone for the rest of time does not better the person, does not teach them a lesson, and goes way beyond what retribution they would ever deserve. The only logical reason for a man to torture someone for eternity would be to satisfy his own sadism. This renders God either sadistic or illogical. "But he also argues that it isn't fair to torture someone in hell for a limited lifetime of sin, but that fails to understand the nature of hell. In the lake of fire, people are not only being tortured for sins in this life, but for sins they continue to commit after death, as they continue to hate God in their hearts for what he has done to them." My opponent has just argued that it is immoral for you to hate God for torturing you. He also suggests that people are continually tortured in Hell because they hate God for torturing them, which then brings more torture upon them and in turn makes them hate God more. That is one of the most morally repugnant statements I have ever heard someone say in defense of Christianity. He asserts that not only does God torture people for not loving the correct version of him in life, but he continues to torture them because they hate him for torturing them! This shows the irrational and immoral thought process that leads people to believe Hell is justified. Because my opponent thinks that God is morally perfect, he must rationalize and justify the doctrine of Hell which is inherently immoral. This creates cognitive dissonance and leads him to think that God torturing someone for eternity is somehow justified and morally acceptable. In reality, torturing someone for an infinite amount of time for simply not loving you should be seen as a morally atrocious act. "You, a mere human are in no position to say that God isn't fair when punishing people in hell. For his thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and his ways, higher than your ways." Con finishes here with an argument from authority. He basically says that I am wrong because God is perfect and omniscient, therefore everything he does is justified. This authoritarian view of morality asserts that whenever someone"s personal logic contradicts the authority, their logic is wrong instead of the authority in question. Authoritarian morality has been used by countless people throughout time to justify their God's seemingly immoral and irrational decisions. For example: I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as my God. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very fond of killing and torturing babies. But this is not immoral, and we should not question the Flying Spaghetti Monster because he is morally perfect and omniscient. Since he is morally perfect and omniscient, he is in a better position to decide whether or not killing and torturing babies wrong. Any mere human who questions this is wrong because the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ways are mysterious and higher than our ways. The reasoning in that example has justified a dehumanizing and disgusting act by simply asserting without evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient and morally perfect. Con has asserted no evidence for the idea that his God is omniscient or perfect, but still asserts that no one can question his God because of this. This is merely an attempt to end the debate by appeals to authority, so this argument and any arguments appealing to authority should be considered invalid in any debate. Hopefully, I have shown in my responses everything that is wrong with Hell. Torturing someone for all of eternity makes the person act even worse, makes them suffer infinitely for finite crimes, and most importantly only serves to satisfy God. God could easily annihilate the people's tortured existence, or even forgive them and give them a chance at redemption. But instead, he purposely makes it so that they will live the rest of their immortal existence in agony and fear. I am running out of characters, so I'm sorry that I couldn't address everything.