The Paradox of Hell

I concur, but a negative punishment is considered to be more The punishment is infinite so the terms "more" and "less" don't apply. It is eternal because those within hell have chosen it to be eternal. So the damned not only choose damnation but continue to choose damnation for all eternity? Not a one of them ever has second thoughts about eternal suffering not being preferable to hanging out with the All-Mighty? Perhaps I am misunderstanding here but I would have to view any soul that chose this way as inherently flawed and any deity that knowingly made it that way speaks strongly against being all-loving. The very reason they are in hell is that they are willing to be excluded from God - hell is what they choose so it does not make sense to say that they would be willing to then accept God after occupying hell. For example, if someone chooses to not go to university then the experience of not being in university isn't going to make them want to go to university. I have a friend in her late thirties attending university on account of the "hell" of her McJob. Humans deal with a variety of privations on a daily basis and do it pretty well. Basic survival skills. That we should go from experiencing God's presence, as we must in this world on non-infinite torment, to the ultimate privation of hell but then not seek an alternative is completely implausible. but they cannot have their punishment reduced if they express regret during their punishment. I hope I never find you on my parole board. If God did not choose to make particular people because they would ultimately choose Hell, then he would be depriving these people of the free will to decide to reject God. Depriving an individual of a single choice is not the same as depriving them of all choice. if everyone in a class got A grades, the value of an A grade would be diminished in comparison to a class where only a few people got A grades. This class is being graded Pass/Fail and you won't simply be held back a year. That the value of embracing God might be diminished does not offset the consequences of denying God. If someone could not possibly reject God, then it would not be a willing relationship between man and God. Let me put it this way: when you are dating a woman that you love, you would not try and hypnotise her into loving you back... 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. This analogy is not relevant to Hell because people do know that they are rejecting God when they commit a mortal sin and do not repent, as part of the definition of a mortal sin is that the sinner is fully aware of its seriousness. My emphasis. Both God and Hell are infinite. We cannot comprehend either of those. Our minds simply aren't capable. We can't be fully aware of the seriousness of our sin if we can't comprehend the nature of either who we have transgressed against or the nature of the punishment. Agreed, but we can comprehend being without God (which is what hell is). If God is infinite then Hell is infinite privation. We can't comprehend either. Not if we accept a omnist view of religion - where we accept that all religions are acceptance of the same God but from different perspectives. 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 including a lamentable number who would have me 'Do unto others with pointy bits of metal.' Furthermore, there is no reason why hell cannot be solely reserved to those who knowingly and deliberately reject God. This would not condemn followers of the wrong religions because they believe they are accepting God and by believing this, they are choosing to accept God. Except that followers of the wrong religions aren't accepting God. They're accepting an unfortunate mix of myth and superstition concocted by mere mortals. There's supposed to be a fundamental difference. It gets worse when the guy from down the street comes knocking on my door Tuesday afternoon with a bunch of pamphlets. They speak of his One True God and how I'll suffer eternal damnation if I don't believe in it. Which is the correct choice? The first? The second? Both? Neither? 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. I never made such an assertion. No, you didn't. That was just me covering my bases. You can appreciate paradise because you would have the divinely-assured knowledge that the suffering is freely-chosen and justly delivered. To wish that the denizens of hell were in heaven would be to wish that they would not be punished - but if those who mortally sin go unpunished then this is unjust. 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. If God did appear then it would provide undeniable evidence of His existence. But this would reduce theism to a matter of accepting undeniable evidence and would remove any aspect of faith. Faith is a great good, and so God is morally justified in maintaining some 'epistemic distance'. Yet, as I mentioned, there are Biblical precedents for God doing exactly that. Even if you're willing to reject all of the Old Testament accounts, the New Testament is largely an account of Jesus Christ's Divinity and his Miracles. Thomas didn't get much 'epistemic distance' whilst poking around in the spear wound. Further, the assertion that "Faith is a great good" is unsupported, nor has it been demonstrated that the benefits of faith offset the detriments of eternal torment. Conclusion: The omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God are in contradiction to the eternity of ultimate suffering that is Hell. This leads to a paradox for mainstream western religions. My opponent has argued that Hell is the consequence of freely-chosen rejection of God. I maintain that this does not resolve the paradox because: (1) Regardless of free-will, the absolute and irrevocable nature of the consequence of damnation is still in contradiction with a loving God, (2) God need not have given us the choice of damnation, (3) God has not taken appropriate action to help prevent us from making the choice of damnation, and (4) The human mind is not competent to make a choice to accept or reject the infinite, with infinite consequences. In closing I would like to thank Philocat for a truly enjoyable discussion. It has been a pleasure to debate this topic with somebody of his knowledge and temperament.