Which is better: Hell or Nonexistence?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- Here, Alexander Pruss outlines the Horrific Thesis and reasons why we ought not accept it: alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2...
In this video, I give some possible ways one could reject the Horrific Thesis, and explain how this allows us to rationally maintain the falsehood of the thesis.
![[LIVE] ใครคุยเรื่องบอล "พ่องตาย" #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.43 (13/7/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8bHYL8RuBqs/mqdefault.jpg)
I hadn't been able to articulate this view, though I've believed it for a long time. Glad to know I have options!
When you go to sleep, where do "you" go? And have you ever experienced insomnia? Now ask yourself again which is better, Hell or nonexistence.
Insomnia is hell..I would think non existence is the better option than agonizing in any way for whatever purpose..
I think it was William Lane Craig who said somewhere that being cannot be compared to non-being, because non-being is not a state. It is not anything. It isn’t even an “it” at all. It is, per Plato, what rocks dream about.
Great video, bro! Keep ‘em coming!😁👍
Thanks! Will do! :)
Well then I guess Jesus was wrong to say to Judas that it would have been better for him not to be born at all, since he was comparing being to non being.
@@johns3927 It’s called Jewish hyperbole, and Jesus used it a lot in the Gospels.
Like you or I saying “It’s raining cats and dogs outside.”
@@johns3927Matthew 26:24 can be interpreted in other ways.
It would have been better if he had never been born could have been used to mean it would have been better if he had been miscarried.
Therefore, here are some possibilities:
Scenario 1: Judas went to hell
1a: miscarried humans go to heaven
1b: miscarried fetuses go through purgatory, which is finite pain
1c: miscarried fetuses go to limbo, where there is no pain
1d: miscarried fetuses go to hell, but Judas' punishment in hell would be more severe than the pain felt by miscarried fetuses
Scenario 2: Judas went through purgatory
2a = 1a
2b = 2b but purgation for babies is less than the purgation Judas had to go through
“I....disagree. I find it highly intUitive that...”
I really like this top hat character.
And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3
First video of your channel I watched! Keep it up brother!
I was actually discussing with someone how ECT can be coherent with an all loving God. This a good video to discuss with someone!
This clashes a lot with your recent video on Pascal's wager, where you presuppose that hell is not just finitely, but infinitely bad, and also that Christianity being false (i.e., no afterlife at all) implies some finite (negative or positive) utility. Going by this video, it would presumably have to be the other way around.
Also, it's hard to believe that someone would really reject the Horrific Thesis when push comes to shove. Like, if you had a switch in front of you with 2 possible positions, where position 1 causes you to get annihilated when you eventually die, and position 2 causes you to continue existing in eternal conscious torment, are you really telling me you'd switch it to position 2?
Your 2nd paragraph just shows that we'd want to get annihilated, but what we want isn't identical to what's good. Given how we're wired, I imagine it's psychologically impossible for us to prefer eternal conscious torment, but that just means it's psychologically impossible for us to choose the good in this case.
@@m.l.pianist2370 In what sense are you using "good" here? I can't see any redeeming qualities of ECT
@@yellowpetelol6417 I'm not a fan of ECT either, my point is just that your thought-experiment doesn't prove the conclusion you want it to. I think most people can agree that "I don't want X" doesn't entail "X is not good" (in almost any sense of good).
Yeah, I would switch it to position 2. An infinitely painful existence is infinitely better than no existence at all.
@@m.l.pianist2370so it turns out God has installed us with a core irrational desire
Nice
First! I wanted to do that on this channel.
Congrats! :)
That's a really interesting hypothesis, that God could speed up the subjective experience of time, so that the damned may be able to experience an infinite amount of suffering in a finite amount of phenomenological experience.
Also, I greatly appreciate the interpretation you gave for in what way it might be 'better' had Judas never existed.
Soooo
Ultimately it comes back to Pascal’s Wager?
Sad
I love your channel
Thanks! :)
This undermines a lot of other things such as Pascal's wager, Christianity not being just an opium of the masses and others
Even when I was a kid I thought going to hell is better than not existing. Because being conscious is much more important than the suffering you're going to experience. But that's just my view. It's like choosing between a neverending tooth ache and being in a coma. I don't like pain, but I think existence is more valuable.
Anyway, I don't think Hell is forever. I forgot the exact passage, but God said something along the lines that he will destroy hell itself, so hell cannot be eternal. I believe the souls that go to hell are given the possibility to repent until the final judgment. Those who repent will enter God's Eternal Kingdom and those who don't will perish from existence.
Hell is forever, purgatory is temporary.
Just found your channel. And after watching this video I would like to comment, even though the video is several months old, because I have thought about hell a lot. I don't think rejecting the Horrific Thesis makes hell easy to defend at all. Intuitively I also think existence in hell is better than non-existence. But those are not the only options, a defender of hell needs to explain why hell is necessary/just. Here is what I think the problem, or rather part one of the problem, is:
1) God doesn't like people being in hell.
2) People don't like being in hell.
3) God can create the possibility of repentance/forgiveness.
Why then wouldn't God allow people to leave hell?
Rejecting 1) is impossible if you want to maintain that God is good. Rejecting 3) is as far as I can tell also impossible, because God did create the possibility for forgiveness in this world and I can't think of any reason why he would be incapable of creating this possibility in the next as well. Rejecting 2) is difficult. Until recently I was convinced that it is impossible as well: On Earth when people choose to do evil or to suffer pain, they normally do it to achieve some good for themselves. But in hell, there is no good and thus nothing to gain. So why would a person decide to remain in hell if given the choice.
Recently I did find an unlikely but possible explanation for why someone might choose hell: in hell a person could imagine an impossible good. For example, if we take the story of Satan's fall literally, in hell Satan could continue to imagine overthrowing God. If he instead reconciled with God, he would not be able to do this anymore. If people remain in hell because they can imagine impossible goods there, that might be an explanation for an eternal hell.
(Even with this I think I would still consider Purgatorial Universalism more likely.)
Part two of the problem is of course the problem of how infinite punishments can be justified for finite crimes. I watched your other video with the the 1+1/2+1/3+... and so far I am not really sure if I think it succeeds in proving that infinite punishment could fit finite crimes. It is an interesting thought, though, and I will have to think more about it.
The imaginary goods approach might solve the problem of justice too, because there hell would be continuous punishment for continuous sin. Some other explanations for hell I think work similarly. But it would require the ability to leave hell. (Which some Christians might object to on scriptural grounds, but the authority of the bible is an entire different discussion.)
Thanks for the comment! Maybe (2) would he hard to reject, but I think that it can be replaced with a more plausible proposition:
2’) The people in Hell like being in Hell more than they like being in Heaven.
This is plausible since it can be argued that in Heaven, people will know God experientially, and that God is the most polarizing Being in existence; the closer you are to God in an experiential sense, the more you will hate or love Him.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared I would agree that modifying (2) is the most likely approach to succeed. After all, the best explanation I could come up with also modifies/rejects (2). "wanting to avoid knowing God experientially" is another plausible explanation for this.
Though, if I were debating you I would probably insist you explain the reasoning of why people would hate God in that way. I don't think people generally hate without reason, so the people in hell would need a reason to hate God. By nature God is not hate-worthy but love-worthy, so it must be a pretty strong reason.
You have a nice day too.
My explanation would start with the proposition that humans are naturally sinful. So, even though God is infinitely good, and therefore infinitely worthy of love, we are prone to hating God because of the evil in us. It requires God to overcome our resistance and change us fundamentally for us to be able to partake in an eternal relationship with Him.
@@ApologeticsSquared I don't think that really explains it. We know that the resistance we offer to God because of our sinful nature can be overcome. So if someone is in hell, either God refuses to overcome that person's sinful nature or that person refuses to let God overcome their sinful nature. The first I would dismiss because of God's love, the second is basically the same problem restated. Again we have someone choosing hell over heaven even if heaven is possible.
I suppose one explanation could be that the process of reconciliation with God is in some way more painful then hell, but finite. I can imagine a person choosing smaller but infinitely lasting pain over larger but finite pain.
Next Video should be:
How loud would one scream in the case of annihilation judgment vs eternal hellfire? 🔥🔥🔥🗣🗣
I think it's "better" to go to a dentist who uses anesthesia than one who does not.
That's just me though.
I think it's better to go to an all-powerful dentist who can fix your teeth without any pain or discomfort than one who has to use needles and drills.
That's just me though.
@@rbgg2010 I think it would have been better to be created with teeth that weren't subject to pain and decay.
That's just me though.
@@B.S._Lewis I believe going to a dentist who doesn't use anesthesia is better than going to a dentist who causes you not to exist.
That's just me though.
@@Player-re9mo You would rather exist in constant pain than not exist? Get stage 4 cancer or MS, then get back to me...
@@B.S._Lewis I thought we were talking about dentists here.
1. You say that maybe pain is not necessarily bad. I agree. But you don't define where it could be good. In my view, pain is good if there is a point- if it teaches you something, makes you stronger, a better person, is a side effect of a helpful procedure, etc. An eternity in Hell is none of those things. So pain in the context of Hell is bad.
2. You frame goodness as a positive quality, and badness as a negative one. However, this seems arbitrary. It's clear that what we consider "good" and "bad" are both comprised of intentions, causes and effects, structures, etc. For example, a lion that eats you has intention, razor sharp teeth, and a physical form with which to tear you to shreds. Similarly, the Holocaust happened because of social structures, ideology, concentration camps, military power, etc. If these weren't there- that would be good! So things that are "bad" depend on things that exist, and "badness", unless arbitrarily defined as some sort of spiritual thing, has a positive existence. The thoughts and actions of Hitler were the result of intentions, ideology, psychology, and neurons in his brain. Mahatma Ghandi's thoughts and actions were generated by the same.
3. If you mean that the good utility of people going to heaven outweighs the bad utility of going to hell, then fine. That doesn't seem to justify infinite suffering to billions, though. And even then, the population of Christians since 1 AD is far less than the population of unbelievers, who according to you are suffering infinite punishment in Hell. So the utility of that is negative. I'm assuming you don't mean that hell is personally better than worse for the damned individual.
4. So, I don't understand this, because if anybody did this to a human being (hurt and maimed them so horribly that they lose cognitive function) we would call them a monster. But God does it, and it somehow makes hell better? In any case, would you maim a toad? Pretty low cognitive function there. Would you torture even a beetle? I wouldn't relish in it. If I, being finitely good, wouldn't do that, then how could an infinitely good God do it?
And through all this, it seems you are ignoring the "crime" that apparently makes people deserving of infinite torment: the "crime" of not believing in something that you don't know exists.
What if the point of hell is to respect the damned's own choice? Respect of another's free will is a valuable good.
most based man i have ever seen
Argument (?): The experience of both pain and non-existence is entirely subjective. Example: severely depressed person would rather cease to exist rather than suffer for even if it was rightful punishment.
you're such a square!
great video
I disagree. 😆 But not really. Kohelet in Ecclesiastes does say non-existence is better than being born. And since he's either pretending to be Solomon or actually the wisest man who ever lived, I'm inclined to agree with him... But only if life "under the sun" is all there is. Fortunately it isn't. So I definitely agree with the ending of the video.
Life under the sun IS all there is. Except for those who are resurrected to life.
Hell was a tool for the catholic church - you could buy your relatives out of those flames and they'd escape as soon as the gold hit the bottom of their purses.
4:30 "this would seem to be easily outweighed by the infinite good of eternally existing"
That's an interesting point. Is existing in hell some good at all? Like, if hell is an existence of nothing but torment and pain then there's no way existing eternally in hell is infinitely good for the damned. But, if existence in hell includes some pleasure as well then that could be the case. I'm now imagining hell as a prison where people play games and have sex while they wait for their daily dose of punishment :p
I think that getting to exist is plausibly good to some extent. Considerations about what the existing person is experiencing come in afterwards.
@@ApologeticsSquared I’m glad you voiced that statement. As someone who deals with both fatiguing physical issues, and struggles a bit with depression, sometimes I feel like not existing might be nice. Sometimes existing feels exhausting. But feelings do not always accurately reflect the truth of our situation.
The fact that getting to exist is a good thing is something to remember. God wanted me to exist, so existing is worth something, even if I feel so tired. (He knows what it’s worth, even if I’m too tired to figure it out)
Annihiltionism and universalism don’t always get a fair shake. Too often they’re presented as very theologically liberal, but some early Church fathers believe in these views.
but the church condemned them. When any doctrine is up for grabs, you don't have a religion, you have a build-a-bear set of religions.
Personally, I’d rather not exist than exist in a painful state of existence. It wouldn’t be better to live unhappily than to not exist. All nonexistence does is remove whatever possible good experiences you might get while existing in hell. Also removing the experience of all possible bads that would be there.
As long as we have the choice to no longer exist (no matter which place we go to), then the afterlife seems fine to me.
Your first and second sentences actually convey radically different propositions. The first one I can easily agree with. The second one isn’t something we seem like we’re in a position to evaluate.
Another note: existing itself seems to be a good thing. So, it’s not true that “All nonexistence does is remove whatever possible good experiences you might get...”
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared If by radically different you mean, too different to be the same idea, then yes. The reason I put that in there is because I was thinking of this as more of an after death thing, go to hell vs no longer existing, so it was a related thought I had. I imagine the choice to not exist would be part of hell since not wanting to live would seem to imply you’d no longer wish to be with God which is basically what hell is, not being with God (at least in part it seems).
As for whether having the choice to no longer exist is explorable, I have no idea if it is in anyway mentioned in the Bible, so I imagine we’d have to either infer from the Bible or find a different way of coming to a conclusion. Which seems to require a different source of gaining moral knowledge.
As for the claim that existence is a good thing, I’ll give a similar reason I made under the evil god challenge video. Existing is neither good nor bad, because all existing does, as a sentient being with free will, is allow for good or bad actions as well as good or bad values. A person won’t necessarily be good, and won’t necessarily be bad either. That purely depends on the individual.
@@ApologeticsSquared After rewatching it, I think I ignored the part where you said not existing at all when saying what the horrific thesis is. I do think the horrific thesis is probably true.
Non existence is really easy to imagine, just think of your life minus 1 year.
Eternal existence is a godlike aspect.
Living forever makes you a god.
Even I'm not THAT egotistical.
I'll take non-existence for $1000, Alex.
No living forever would make you god like. That is by your own logic. I see your point though.
you have a low view of God. God is outside of time.
i'd argue the third theory not mentioned here is best reincarnation
It certainly is the most elegant of ideas I've heard for what happens after death. Especially when coupled with the idea of Karma.
Ever had surgery with anesthesia? That's what it's like to not exist. Going to hell is like surgery without anesthesia. I'd rather disappear than go to heaven and watch all the people I love go to hell for no reason other than God says so
But wait. If not existing at all is worse than going to some Hell, then being in Hell is not the worst imaginable state. If not existing is the worst state, then shouldn’t that be what Hell is?
I don’t think Hell _is_ the worst imaginable state. (Which turns out to be a very low bar to pass!)
02:03 "i
told her i would prefer to find that when i died i went to hell then for there to be no god and when i died i just ceased to exist so i personally find it quite intuitive to reject the horrific thesis"
I find the opposite to be intuitive. Not being in a "really bad" place is better than being there. Would you agree to exchange your 14 billions years of non-existance to 14 billions years of hell?
04:29 Also the premise of "the infinite good of eternally
existing" is smuggled without justification.
Another big problem is that your 3 initial questions (at 0:44) most of the times are not even addressed by your arguments.
// Would you agree to exchange your 14 billions years of non-existance to 14 billions years of hell? //
No. But if I was on judgement day and God said that I could not go to Heaven, and there were two doors in front of me, with one leading to Hell and the other which would annihilate me, I would go through the Hell door.
// Also the premise of "the infinite good of eternally existing" is smuggled without justification. //
"Smuggling"? I simply did not include my argument for this premise for the sake of time. I find that the premise is intuitive enough to justify this, but I understand where you're coming from; it can appear like smuggling. My first premise is that it's good to exist for a period of time (say, a day). Next, eternally existing has infinite instances of this good. Therefore, eternally existing is an infinite good.
// Another big problem is that your 3 initial questions (at 0:44) most of the times are not even addressed by your arguments. //
Denying the Horrific Thesis was meant to address these questions. My arguments addressed the denial of the Horrific Thesis.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared
Why wouldn't you agree to exchange if "it's good to exist for a period of time (say, a day)." and 14 billions years is a period of time?
Great question!
I don’t think I lose anything by not having been created later, nor do I gain anything by having been created earlier. The “important” part to what is “better” for me seems to be what my subjective experience of reality is like. (This is why I don’t like the slowing-down-Hell proposal.) In this context (assuming I go to Heaven eventually in your proposal) I will either:
1) Spend 14 billion years in Hell before going to Heaven.
2) Be on Earth 80ish years and then go to Heaven.
(2) is obviously better than (1).
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared
1) "I don’t think I lose anything by not having been created later, nor do I gain anything by having been created earlier."
2 ) "it's good to exist for a period of time" so you loose/gain goodness of existing.
Can you, please, pick one or demonstrate lack of contradiction in your statements?
Sure. There is a distinction between objectively how much time passes, and how much time passes for me subjectively. When comparing the goodness or badness of something, we should try and stick to the subjective measure. If I feel a particular pain, it doesn’t matter if my brain is sped up so it takes 5 seconds to feel the pain, or slowed down to take 1 minute, if in both cases they’re the same pain.
So if this is right, and we should be judging the subjective time, then me being created earlier or later doesn’t matter. In both cases I feel subjectively an eternity (assuming humans are immortal). So, *when* I get created doesn’t matter at all! The only important thing is *that* I get created.
Have a nice day! :)
you should make a video about the problem of evil
I made a short one! th-cam.com/video/b8eG-a73CDc/w-d-xo.html
Hell is a place of darkness. The eternal punishment and eternal torment are just a reaction to God's love.
Or maybe hell is just a state.
Better is a subjective word. Existence vs Non-existence cannot be considered better/worse unless one attaches a goal. What does it mean to be better? You are merely assuming that it is better to exist than not to exist but your justification for this would just be arbitrary.
// Better is a subjective word. Existence vs Non-existence cannot be considered better/worse unless one attaches a goal. What does it mean to be better? //
Given theism, it seems quite plausible that there is such a thing as objective good. So, if you want to do an internal critique of theism, then you need to allow the theist to use this concept. The theist can then define "better" as "achieving more of that objective goodness stuff." This seems to have no issue.
// You are merely assuming that it is better to exist than not to exist but your justification for this would just be arbitrary. //
I am not merely assuming that it is better to exist. I gave possible explanations of how the HT could be false and then, based on what I know of the character of God, concluded that the HT is probably false (even if I am not sure which explanation is correct).
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared I must say while I appreciate your valediction, it sometimes seem dismissive. If you are willing to engage in a discussion and test different philosophies in an impartial way then your words can have an undesired effect in a way that can prohibit further dialogue rather than welcoming it.
I am willing to grant that given theism, it seems quite plausible that there may be such a thing as an objective good, probably in a platonic way. Im not rly a big fan of moral arguments tbh, I just found this video particularly interesting.
I am more interested in your epistemic stance, I would believe it is safe to assume your belief in God is properly basic. I love Epistemology so maybe you can indulge me. How is any answer to the problem of the criterion, not question begging? How is any foundationalist theory, not arbitrary? How is any argument for Phenomenal Conservatism, not assuming seemings are truth indicative?
If we grant properly basic beliefs such as sensus divinitatus, we can run a parellel argument against it. Finding defeaters for any belief would rely on the possibility of justification via Agrippan Trilemma but they all are problematic. Foundationalism can lead to the principle of explostion since every contradictory claim can be made once it is not internally contradictory with itself via epistemic equivallence.
// I must say while I appreciate your valediction, it sometimes seem dismissive. //
I in no way meant to dismiss you with it. I will refrain from ending with, "Have a nice day!" although I will probably continue to end my posts with ":)".
// I love Epistemology so maybe you can indulge me. //
I'm more of a metaphysics guy, but I'll do my best!
// How is any answer to the problem of the criterion, not question begging? //
I don't know if any answer can be.
// How is any foundationalist theory, not arbitrary? How is any argument for Phenomenal Conservatism, not assuming seemings are truth indicative? //
A belief is not arbitrary if and only if it is justified. As I see it, Foundationalism and Phenomenal Conservatism affect what "justification" really is, so asking for a justification for a belief in these theories will necessarily have a question-begging element (e.g. I hold my belief in Phenomenal Conservatism because it seems to be true and I have no defeaters for it).
// If we grant properly basic beliefs such as sensus divinitatus, we can run a parellel argument against it. //
I don't know what that would be. It seems that, as long as one grants that a sensus divinitatus is on par with the rest of our perception of reality, then any argument against it proves too much.
:)
@@ApologeticsSquared sounds good. I meant a parellel properly basic belief such as a sensus atheus.. sense that atheism is true. I think Foundationalism is problematic because it presupposes the truth of foundationalism before justifying the use of foundationalism. It always arbitrarily suspends the demand for justification by saying something seems self evident. If that is the case, one need no justification for anything since one can always claim that things seem self evident to them.
Even if some people have a sensus atheus, I don’t see how it undermines the proper basicity (basicness?) of theistic belief. If I have a properly basic belief that I am hungry, why would that be undermined if you had a psychic-style impression that I was not hungry? Likewise, if people get a sensation that in a properly basic manner lead to their belief in God, how would a sensus atheus in other people defeat its rationality?
And while I agree that anyone could *claim* that anything seems self-evident, they would be liars if it wasn’t actually self-evident. So, that seems to be an objection against foundationalists, not foundationalism (maybe that was your point?).
:)
@Apologetics Squared
You cannot rationally maintain that it is better to exist for all of Eternity Future in Hell than not to have ever existed.
Disagree ??
Imagine being buried alive in a Coffin forever and ever. How would that be better for you than non existing ??
Jesus said it would have been better if Judas had never been born. That seems to refute this.
This is just not convincing at all. You just can't persuade me that eternal conscious torment is better than not existing just because one has existence.
Well, I’ll try to spell out my perspective in another way and you can tell me where you think I went wrong. :)
Existing for a year is a good thing. Let’s call the magnitude of this goodness G. Now, suffering for a year is a bad thing. Let’s call the badness of that suffering B. B will be smaller the less intense the suffering is.
Now, let’s break up the eternity of a damned soul’s stay in Hell into individual year-long chunks. If, for each year, G is bigger than B, then the fact that the person lived through that year is overall a good thing. And if this applies to every year, then suffering for eternity might be an overall good thing! Thoughts?
@@ApologeticsSquared so I’ve had this similar conversation with someone else. There are two ways to answer this, I’ll only use the first way.
I don’t see existing in and of as an intrinsic good but instrumental. A person who had bad things happen through out that year but lived might be an overall good either because the good they experienced that year outweighs the bad or that year or the the hood they can *potentially* experience outweighs the bad (we aren’t omniscient so we can’t know if it will be or not).
Hell is different. As I don’t see merely existing as a good, except for the the potential it gives for experience, the experience itself is one of suffering perpetually. Part of why it’s hell is precisely that the experience of bad there outweighs the experience of good, unless you want to formulate that they do experience something they can enjoy that a person could accept as a trade off for suffering forever. I don don’t see a possible answer there. Furthermore while for the person with the bad things happening in a year we have the hope of potential better years, there is no such hope for the one in hell.
The only out to argue that even though all existence confers on a rational essence is the possibility for experience (that is to say existence is itself content empty in terms of experience but is what allows for things to be experienced and experience) that if the experiences had by a person were overwhelmingly negative and were only to stay that way, that fact that they exist to experience that negativity makes it worth it. In other words there is something X about existing itself, apart from any experience that can come from existing, which makes existence worth having. Problem is that such a thing X doesn’t exist as it will would always relate to some experience a person can have (but in the hell scenario the overwhelming experience is bad so good experience isn’t outweighing that). Furthermore by appealing to some fact of the matter that relates to/informs experience you are no longer talking about valuing being as a good itself to be held on to even if in hell, but appealing to a way being adds to my reality experientially (which to me isn’t coherent as it is only a medium).
Or you can say the X isn’t related to some experience a person has but just some abstract principle or fact of the matter, to which I simply say, who cares? By definition it doesn’t add anything to my experience, which in this scenario still remains overwhelmingly negative.
So really there isn’t anything you can give me or show me that you say I should value enough that it would make an eternity in hell worth it.
@@Whomoon11 //In other words there is something X about existing itself, apart from any experience that can come from existing, which makes existence worth having. //
If I understand you correctly, that's what I believe.
// Problem is that such a thing X doesn’t exist as it will would always relate to some experience a person can have (but in the hell scenario the overwhelming experience is bad so good experience isn’t outweighing that). //
I don't understand this objection. I don't see how we go from "it would always relate to some experience a person can have" to "such a thing X doesn’t exist." Even if existence is inseparable from experience, why can't the value of existence be separable from the value of the experience?
@@Whomoon11 Btw, are you the person in this interview? th-cam.com/video/0kh9WzJ4WSU/w-d-xo.html
@@ApologeticsSquared well I gave two options, one where its value is related to experience which I’ve pointed out contradicts valuing being for itself. Plus the hell the scenario assumes an overwhelming negative experience.
I then said that one is able to assign a value to being in such a way that it is valued apart from anything it adds experientially. To this I said “who cares?” You can choose to hold it as a value stripped of experience or even a value in light of only overwhelmingly negative experience with no end in sight but at that stage we’ve reached an insurmountable divide between our positions. The only thing I can say is that either there is an experiential value you are not aware of/not disclosing or you’re valuing it due to a pre-commitment to come abstract concept. Which is fine but given what one is asked to endure for this commitment which in this instance allegedly affords no experiential value, I see no reason to commit to it and nothing there to value. Nor do I think I ever could.
What if hell isn't really real, there's only purgatory and heaven. But God simply deceived us into thinking there is hell because that creates the best (or one of the best or a really good) world. People will fear hell and won't ignore the pains of there brethren and therefore live more moral lives.
If we think there is a possibility of hell we will act more couragesly and less sinfully. But when we die God actually makes it his full time effort for you to freely come to him and share his love. Given he is a really cool guy and he has all the time in the world he succeeds every single time. There is a possibility someone rejects him forever but that probability is literally 0%. So no free will problems. (Even Hitchens and God are buddies now.)
You might object: "I disagree, God can't lie."
Well, we don't really know the mind of God now do we? Maybe he has morally sufficient reasons to lie. Inspiring the world to live more moral lives seems like a really great good that easily overcomes just by bending the truth.
Also, when you look through the Bible you don't actually need God to outright lie. Just allow some confusion about gehenna and similar concepts to sneak through the cracks.
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.
Matthew 26:24
I address that passage at 6:58
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Dang, now I’m one of the people who doesn’t watch the whole video and comments. Appreciate what you do. God Bless.
"Thus says The Lord to the deceptive harlot, to the mother of all fornications: Woe, I say to you! Even three times, woe! For the atheist shall have it far better than you, when the wrath of the great and dreadful God has come! For when they seek forgiveness, they shall surely find it. Yet woe to you who blaspheme the Spirit; from you forgiveness has fled away![5] Behold, destruction waits for you as you continue to tread the wide path![6]
For you believe yourself to be a glorious vine, yet your roots are full of rottenness, a vine of deceit with many tendrils spreading forth abomination! Behold, you see yourself as a sovereign nation, as the mother church, universal, and yet you willingly go into captivity and hold fast in your rebellion! Therefore, I shall make you a desolation and an astonishment, an object of horror and hissing; I shall strip you bare!
And behold, you shall become an island, a most desolate place amidst the nations. No more shall anyone draw near to you, nor shall any attempt to pass through. For all shall keep their distance for fear of your punishment. Every traveler shall go roundabout, horrified at the smoke of your burning.
For thus says The Lord: I have set you apart for judgment! I have separated you out for death, for sorrow and for famine, until the fire of My wrath consumes you! For you have caused My beloved to depart from Me; you have turned them aside from The Way! You have caused them to trust in fables and to put their hope in lies and false visions, in worthless things![7] The Truth is not in you, and from The Life you are far removed![8]
You have pierced My heart with a hot iron! You have battered and bruised Me, and torn My flesh! My sadness fills the heavens like the unending blackness, My tears cover the earth like the oceans, because of you! My anger wells up within Me like a raging fire, on account of all these you have persecuted and murdered throughout your generations!
Indeed, the cup of My indignation overflows, on account of all you have done and are about to do, says The Lord. And still I sent to you many in My own name, that you might be saved from yourself. Yet you rejected them all, beating some and killing others, casting them out in your pompous rage. You will not turn, and so The Father has declared your end.
WOE TO THE CHURCH CALLED MOTHER!
WOE TO YOU AND YOUR APPOINTED LEADERS!
WOE TO YOU AND ALL YOUR “HOLY FATHERS”![9]...
WOE TO THE CHURCH CALLED ROMAN AND CATHOLIC!
WOE TO THE CHURCH FULL OF DEAD MEN’S BONES![10]...
For I have prepared a great fire, and behold, it is already kindled,
And you, along with all who cleave to you, shall surely be cast into it![11]...
SAYS THE LORD."
~
"Therefore fear, all you who point the finger, and humble yourselves, all you who twist My words for your own gain, lest you be found guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. For the defilement which was written, and remains misinterpreted by men, is not defilement with the daughters of men, but defilement with the churches of men, who remain daughters of the church called mother. For she is a harlot, says The Lord. Thus spiritual purification begins with grace, and is for those whom I have chosen to become virgin in spirit, even a complete cleansing of every aspect of their lives.
All men are defiled, having fallen
Into all manner of diverse temptations;
There is none righteous in all the earth, no, not one...
Yet all who repent, in sincerity and in truth,
Are cleansed in the blood of The Lamb,
Which is pure and holy...
Therefore, those whom I have called to be My witnesses
Must become pure in heart and in spirit;
Set apart from the world and the churches of men,
Who cease not from polluting My name
And marring My image before the people."
trumpetcallofgodonline.com
What do you think of the following in regards to the evil god challenge? Live your channel by the way!
P1, a maximally evil god would be maximally prideful
P2, a maximally prideful god would be incapable of thinking beyond self
Following from P2, P3, a maximally evil god could not consider creating other minds
P4, other minds exist
P5, God cannot be maximally evil
I think that's a plausible argument. However, I think one could also plausibly argue that self-centeredness may lead him to consider creating other minds as a means to fulfill his *own* sadistic desires.
Have a nice day! :)
I became very convinced about the reality of judgment, after going to Israel, visiting specific places the God of the Bible pronounced judgment upon, and seeing with my own eyes the residue of said judgment.
The God of the Bible is very different from the god of the Quran, Book of Mormon, Hindu scriptures, etc...
When He pronounces judgment it comes true in horrific detail.
but he isn't loving like people claim
@@robjackson4050 Think about that for a second. In all literature man has ever written, what is the Greatest story of sacrificial live?
@@mikeyant2445 well with all the books i haven't read and have been lost to time i honestly can't say
@@robjackson4050 Ok...well as far as we know, man has never been able to even imagine a sacrificial live greater than the love described in the Gospels of Jesus Christ.
@@mikeyant2445 so he did one good thing consider this if anyone else was that controlling of what people did with there lives and threatened them with torture they would either get life in prison or even the death penalty
Hell isnt even biblical, what a waste of time and energy
Hell = You/Your choices matter and carries weight. If you choose Good you will be with Good = Heaven. If you choose Bad you will be with Bad = Hell. So it is all about you and what you decide and strive for.
7:10 Matthew 26:24 can be interpreted in other ways.
It would have been better if he had never been born could have been used to mean it would have been better if he had been miscarried.
Therefore, here are some possibilities:
Scenario 1: Judas went to hell
1a: miscarried humans go to heaven
1b: miscarried fetuses go through purgatory, which is finite pain
1c: miscarried fetuses go to limbo, where there is no pain
1d: miscarried fetuses go to hell, but Judas' punishment in hell would be more severe than the pain felt by miscarried fetuses
Scenario 2: Judas went through purgatory
2a = 1a
2b = 2b but purgation for babies is less than the purgation Judas had to go through