Ex-Atheist.com. Christian Apologetics, Logic and Debate!

The following model was constructed to provide, without internal contradiction, a philosophical defense for the compatible co-existence of a loving God and an eternal Hell. The purpose of the model is not to extract, or support, the doctrine of eternal damnation from scripture; that is an entirely different argument. Its purpose is to provide a foundation upon which arguments can be made to defend the orthodox interpretation of Hell.

The analogy of how a good and loving parent can permit his child to suffer, if the suffering is insignificant and for the greater good of the child, was given here

This analogy, although sufficient to explain the co-existence of a loving god and temporary, earthly suffering, cannot be used to justify eternal suffering. Eternal suffering is not insignificant, nor does it function for the greater good of those who will experience it. Many see Hell as the ultimate expression of divine sadism. They will argue that no matter how horribly a person has behaved during his time on earth, he is not deserving of relentless, unending torment. Even if Hitler was punished a lifetime for each life he destroyed, how could a just judge sentence him to a punishment that lasted forever? Even more compelling, within the Christian context, people who have behaved decently, but who are not ‘saved’, will be subject to the same dreadful fate. How, then, can God be described as loving, just, fair and merciful? Surely, an all powerful, all knowing God would be able to create a reality that did not require eternal damnation.

If you are a Christian who is not familiar with the complexity of the argument, I recommend that you first read The William Lane Craig-Ray Bradley Debate

THE RECONCILIATION OF GODLY NATURE AND HELL'S EXISTENCE:

1) God seeks to create an eternal nation of good and holy people.

2) God can’t instantly create people with this holy nature.

a. There are some things that God can’t do. For example, he can’t lie. He can't go against His own moral nature.

b. The things that God cannot do serve to define God, as well as those things that He can do.

c. God cannot do things that breach logic. For example, He may be able to create a square or a circle, but he cannot create a circle that is a square. Such an object cannot logically exist.

d. The fact that he cannot do everything does nothing to compromise His existence as the most powerful force that can possibly exist.

e. Therefore, the description of God being ‘all powerful’ should not be held to a rigid, hyper literalism. It is hyperbole.

3) The very attributes that he desires His holy people to possess are dependent upon the existence and exercise of free will.

a. Morality involves conscious decision-making.

Even though there are 'good' and 'bad' bacteria, in that some can make us ill while others work to keep us healthy, there is a reason why we don’t refer to bacteria as being moral or immoral. A bacterium doesn’t have the ability that would allow it to ponder the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of its actions. It is impossible for bacteria to be consumed by a moral dilemma.

b. Other holy attributes, such as generosity, love, and mercy, are also dependent upon free will.

A tree that produces many apples for its owner cannot be described as ‘generous’ in the moral sense of the term; it’s not as if it could withhold the apples by simply not choosing to grow them. A man is not considered generous when he pays his taxes. Generosity is dependent upon choice.

4) God creates a perfect free will agent in order to accomplish #1 (create a good and holy people).

a) God does not create defective men with a sinful nature.

The presence of free will establishes a human nature that can alternate between choosing God’s will and rejecting God’s will. When a free will agent uses his free will to go against God's will, it is not evidence of an error on the part of God, but evidence that God has successfully created a free will agent.

b) Free will agents form their own nature through the hundreds of moral decisions that they make in a lifetime.

We choose whether to entertain, or extinguish our desires, regardless of whether those desires are genetic predispositions or acquired. The condition of our soul becomes a product of our choices.

c) No man is completely holy, just as no man is completely evil.

At times, free will agents are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. At times, free will agents become faced with moral dilemma's and the answer is not clear to them. Therefore probability, not God, dictates that few individuals will always choose God’s will, just as very few will never choose God’s will.

d) Divine coercion would deny the practical necessity of free will, hence, God will not use irresistible coercion.

God reveals Himself subjectively, rather than objectively. This way, each will believe what they will, instead of having to acknowledge an undeniable objective reality. If we knew with 100% certainty that the Biblical God existed, there is not one among us, including the already faithful, who would not act differently.

5) Mortal death does not result in the death of a soul. While God can allow, and call for mortal death, that is not the same as allowing, or calling for, the permanent annihilation of human souls.

a) God designed human souls to experience immortality.

John 5:28-29 and other verses describing the nature of heaven and hell, indicate that both the righteous and unrighteous return from their earthly graves to experience an eternal existence.

b) Perhaps it would be a moral incongruity, not unlike lying, for God to annihilate created souls.

Each of us paints his own picture upon the canvas of his soul. Though God may provide us with the canvas and the paints, in becoming artists, we become the sole proprietor of our art work. While others may be repulsed by our creation, and choose not to have it in their home, their revulsion does not give them license to destroy what we have created, and, therefore, own. A parent would not think it right to destroy his child's work of art; there is no reason to believe that a god would think it right to destroy his creation's work of art.

6) Because the human soul is immortal, sin has eternal consequences.

a) All men would suffer an eternal, Hellish existence if they were made to be immortal in their present, unchanged state.

For this reason, God sent Adam out of the garden in order for Adam to learn the things of the spirit that could not be learned in paradise.

b) The same hellish earthly attitudes that cause people to become closed off from God are magnified in the stretch of eternity.

Traits such as jealousy, conceit, self-righteousness, pessimism, and hatred, which are all bearable in a mortal existence, will result in all consuming bitterness and burning misery in an endless existence. There is no need for Hell to contain black hooded sadists. Our own minds will become effective instruments of torture.

This isn't saying that the people who exhibit these tendencies now are inevitably destined for Hell, nor is it saying that those who have positive characteristics are inevitably destined for Heaven. What matters isn't so much the attributes that we display, but the state of our heart, which is displayed before God.

c) Our sin may cause others to sin and to become closed off to God for eternity. Our sin, therefore, contributes to the eternal misery of others; thus, our own eternal suffering is justified.

7) Men are given the opportunity to overcome their sinful rebellion by living in a world of their own making, whereby they can see the daily consequences of their sin and hopefully realize the need for change.

a) Not all men are given the same opportunity.

This isn't fair, but living in an environment that is not paradise cannot be fair. How then can judgment be fair? Those who have had the slightest opportunity to accept Christ will be compared to those who have had ample opportunity. If but one amongst those who has had the slightest opportunity finds his way through the narrow gate and acknowledges Christ as his Saviour, those who have had equal, or greater, opportunity will be without excuse, should they reject Christ. Thus, in a world where billions and billions of humans experience life and death, each will be compared with thousands of others who are in similar circumstances.

For example, a man who turns against God, because his son was killed, will be judged by the same standard as a man who retains his faith in God, even though his son and daughter were both killed.

The margin for error and excuse diminishes with every person who is born.

8) The only way that man can re-enter Paradise is to become totally holy.

a) The only way that man can become totally holy would be to use his free will to sign away his free will agency over to God.

Christians pray that they will be more like Christ; they want to think and act as Jesus would. In heaven, their prayers are answered. They don't view the loss of their free will as a loss.

b) God cannot force His will upon free will agents without their mind being open to His mind. This would be the equivalent of spiritual rape and God cannot act against His moral character.

Luke 2:34-35 states, "...Behold, this [child] (Jesus) is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against...that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

This is what Matthew Henry writes in his commentary about these verses:

The secret good affections and dispositions in the minds of some will be revealed by their embracing Christ, and closing with him; the secret corruptions and vicious dispositions of others, that otherwise would never have appeared so bad, will be revealed by their enmity to Christ and their rage against him. Men will be judged of by the thoughts of their hearts, their thoughts concerning Christ; are they for him, or are they for his adversaries? The word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and by it we are discovered to ourselves, and shall be judged hereafter.

God doesn’t need us to take obvious stands for or against His Son in order to know the condition of our soul, because He is well aware of it already. He presents Christ to us as a litmus test in an effort to make us aware of our own state of heart, in order that we can take steps to correct it. Hell is not a threat for those who would dare to stand against God; it is a warning to those who stand against God that their disposition needs to change for their own good.

People frequently ask about the fairness of Hell for those who have not heard of Jesus. If our reaction to Christ is indeed a litmus test that indicates the condition of what is already inside of us, then to not take the test doesn't necessarily mean that one will fail it. If a person believes in, and is open to, everything that Christ stands for, and opposed to everything Christ stands against, even if he has never heard of Jesus, it is unimaginable that his mind would be closed to surrendering itself to God's will. In the case of infants, we must ask how closed can the mind of an infant be? Such souls become the recipients of God's mercy, and He takes over their free will because their resistance to Him is not prohibitive, and because it is for their welfare. Such is the mercy of God. Each will be judged according to the truth they have received.

9) For Heaven’s sake, God separates those who have agreed, through their free will, to turn over their free will to Him, from those who have not.

a) It would not be just for the righteous to be made to suffer eternally for the sake of the eternally corrupt.

b) The Christian God does permit the existence of Hell, but there is nothing inherently unloving about Hell.

Hell is a neutral separation. Consider the existence of hospitals; people don't go to hospitals to get sick, they go to hospitals because they are already sick. Likewise, people don't go to Hell to get punished; they go to Hell because they are already in the process of causing their own misery.

10) Therefore, Hell is the inevitable result of man’s unwillingness to part from his sin through surrender of his free-will agency.

11)Therefore, God could not have created free-will agents without the prospect of Hell.

12) Therefore, love, mercy, generosity, and goodness could not have been created without the prospect of Hell. This leads us to the next issue:

PROBABILITY VS. OMNISCIENCE

Realistically, good and loving parents bring forth children to live in a world that is ripe with suffering, yet they are not condemned for doing so. However, a human parent’s awareness of probability and statistics is not the same as God’s omniscience, which is knowledge with certainty.

With that in mind, the world becomes an all or nothing proposition for God. Should God have created any of us, then, knowing that some of us, or perhaps even the majority, are destined for Hell?

If a parent could know with certainty that his child would grow up to commit crimes and spend his life in turmoil and create turmoil for others, but that his grandchild would grow up to become a productive citizen, build hospitals to take care of the suffering, and change lives for the better, should he deny the grandchild’s existence by preventing the life of his child? If God knows with certainty that the majority of people on earth will suffer eternal Hell, but that a small percentage will produce souls of precious, radiant, glory, should He deny the existence of those bound for heaven to prevent the suffering of those on their way to Hell?

It is with this dilemma that the argument ends. The subjective nature of the question posed can only result in subjective opinions, with equal support from both sides.

[Return to Ex-Atheist home]