Eternal Damnation

[Kozmos]

How long a mind can sustain eternal torment before it you know breaks and stop perceiving the torment properly?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If we supposed that in our world there was the technology to keep someone alive indefinitely and also torture this person indefinitely - then I'd agree that it is an interesting question what on the long run would happen.
However, I am sure that if there is an almighty God doing the torturing then this won't be a problem unless God wants it to be one.

 

[Borachio]

So, a pan-dimensional entity could handle the problem of habituation? Presumably she's infinitely inventive in her tormenting? (Though she subcontracts the work out to demons, I've heard.)

I can't see why not. I hadn't considered this would be a problem before, but it's nice to know that there's a solution to it.

 

[kramerfan86]

Not remotely justifiable, especially not for failing to follow religious code. If Christianity is to be believe its been nearly 2000 years since God properly communicated with humanity, from then on out the only messengers of his rules are other humans who cant even properly agree what the rules are. I mean who is right? Catholics? Baptists? Methodists? To punish people with torture for all eternity because they do not believe or follow rules told to them by other people is not justifiable.

I mean frankly speaking its not really justifiable to torture people for any length or time, but basing it on humans not believing other humans is certainly a whole other level of non-justifiable.

 

[kramerfan86]

Also I have always found the whole "ignorance of God's rules allows you to still get into heaven" mindset a bit odd. That would sort of make missionaries some of the biggest jerks on the planet because they are essentially going to a people who are guaranteed paradise for all eternity and utterly ruining it for them.

 

[Farm Boy]

The problem is in basing it on humans believing it's at all linked to the condemnation of other humans. It's more sensible when you take out those who would tell you that they themselves sitteth upon the throne.

 

[Rashiminos]

God is True. God is One; Eternal; Absolute; Infinite; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like Him.

You lost me here.

 

[warpus]

You lost me here.

Maybe I can figure this out:

God is True.

God takes on a boolean value of true.
Alternative: God is a tautology
Other alternative: God is always right?

God is One.

God is a thing that when looked at as a whole can be considered a thing.
Alternative: There is only 1 God.

God is Eternal.

This one's easy: God has existed and will exist forever

God is Absolute.

God is the complete package.
Alternative: God is pure and ultimate.

God is Infinite.

God takes up an infinite amount of space.
Alternative: God is immeasurably amazing

He begetteth not nor is He begotten.

God doesn't cause things to happen nor does he have a cause.
Alternative: God doesn't breed and doesn't have a mother either.

And there is none like Him.

God is unique

 

[Borachio]

The bit I don't understand is this:

Human Beings have a Soul that exists eternally and is connected to the physical body (Dualism)

I have looked for my soul and never found anything that even remotely resembles a disembodied consciousness (if that is what a soul is, of course).

But let's suppose that there is such a thing, how is it connected to the physical body?

Well, let's be specific: how does a non-material thing have an effect on a material thing?

If it could have such an effect, wouldn't that contravene the Law of Conservation of Energy? And couldn't we then have soul-powered perpetual motion machines?

Dualism doesn't hold water does it?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, let's be specific: how does a non-material thing have an effect on a material thing?

I have it on respected authority that it's through the pineal gland.

Mind, too?

 

[Borachio]

Alright.

I'll recast the question. How does a non-material thing have an effect on the pineal gland?

Show me this non-material thing, and show me it having an effect.

I don't understand what you mean by "Mind, too?" Are you proposing that the mind is a non-material thing? As far as I know, consciousness (which is more or less the equivalent of "Mind") is a material emergent property of a material brain.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Is your mind nothing more than consciousness? Is that all you mean by mind?

 

[Borachio]

Er. Yes. I think so.

What else could it be?

Are you saying the mind is something immaterial?

 

[Gori the Grey]

And volition? That too, wholly material?

 

[Rashiminos]

Show me this non-material thing, and show me it having an effect.

Can you grow an eye that sees 'non-material things?'

 

[Borachio]

I don't think so. Can you?

Edit: oh you mean how could I reasonably expect to see an immaterial thing with my eye? I don't expect to see X-rays with my eye, though. I do expect to be convinced of their material existence by other means. Perhaps I should ask you to demonstrate the existence of the soul. Or just persuade me that such a thing (ah, but it's not a thing is it? being immaterial) must necessarily exist.

This article doesn't convince me.

And volition? That too, wholly material?

How is it not? And if it can be an immaterial thing, how can it have an effect on material things?

 

[Gori the Grey]

And each particular volition, is each one its own individual material thing?

Like some years ago when you fancied pork chops grilled over sage and onions:

Old mother hubbard tonight. I've got to pop down the shop see what takes my fancy, or it's bread and pullet again. Actually, no bread in the house..

Probably, pork chops grilled over sage and onions, mushrooms. Tomato salad...erm...can't make up my mind. How about baby potatoes butter and mint?

Was that fancy its own particular material object? In your head, the way we usually imagine these things? In your brain?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is conscious eternal torment morally justified?

Framework for the Debate

This framework addresses the main presuppositions which will form the guidelines for contention - everyone must agree on them to indulge in the debate.

• God is True. God is One; Eternal; Absolute; Infinite; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like Him.
• Hell Fire is an eternal conscious torment and real.
• God both knows what will happen whilst people still having Free Will (Molinism)
• Human Beings have a Soul that exists eternally and is connected to the physical body (Dualism)
• Only intentional sin is weighed, unintentional sin is not. For example, the unlearned would not be punished because it is unintentional whereas people who know about the religion and go against guidelines would be punished.

Given these presuppositions, both supporters and opponents alike may argue for or against the resolution (Is Eternal Torment Morally Justified?).

I will start: Eternal torment is morally justified given the above presuppositions.

Status and Morality

My first contention focuses on the severity of sin based on the status of the being it is being directed towards. This falls in line with general moral intuitions. Surely, the immorality felt by killing an ant or a fly is much different than that of another human since the status of the human is higher than that of the ant or fly. The argument doesn't require societal structures at all.

Now when we consider God, a being of infinite greatness and supremacy the level of immorality rises to infinity. Many times when committing sins, believers are encouraged to not think of the weight of the sin but the greatness of the one we are transgressing: do not look at the smallness of the sin, rather look at the greatness of the One Whom you have disobeyed. Since the more serious a crime is the more serious its punishment should be, all sin against God merits an infinite punishment.

An important consideration with this idea of the level of immorality increasing with higher status is the intentionality of the sin. For example, hitting someone with your car by accident rather than on purpose is much less immoral or even amoral rather than the latter.

Only intentional sin will be counted as was agreed upon in the framework. An intentional sin would be someone who has heard the message of God, its guidelines, and freely transgresses them. People who have never heard the message of God will not be condemned to eternal damnation for their unintentional sins.

Consequences of Sin

While my first contention argues that all sin (given people who have heard of God's message) merits an infinite punishment based on status, this contention shows that some sins based on their consequences merit an eternal punishment.

Many people who reject or who are critical of the teaching of the eternal nature of hell often say that the amount of sins are finite and thus doesn't warrant an eternity in hell. However, what they seem to focus on is the time aspect of the sin rather than their consequences. While an act of sin maybe temporal, the effects of some sins have eternal consequences.

For example, consider heinous sins such as rape or murder. The consequences on the mind/soul of those affected by murder and rape are permanent for all those who have been involved. Since these crimes are arguably are primarily on the mind, their consequences are everlasting. Considering the agreed upon framework of this debate, the soul continues to exist after death and as such the effects continue to last until God relieves them. Murder of an innocent is has an eternal and permanent result, as a terminated life cannot be brought back, ever.

Irrespective of whether the damage is repaired, the punishment should be eternal. An analogy to illustrate, suppose one who was stabbed by another person was hospitalized and brought back to good health in a reasonable span of time. Simply because the pain and damage caused has been repaired, it doesn't mean that the one who wronged doesn't pay the punishment anymore. In fact, they still would pay the same penalty regardless of whether the victim was healed or not. Similarly, because the one whom sin with eternal consequences has been inflicted upon is relieved it doesn't mean the one who has committed the sin is also relieved.

Free Will

This contention shows that Hell is ultimately a choice made by the individual and not be blamed upon God. According to God's message, this entire life is a test, it is a preparation for the next life to come. Those who are righteous and freely follow the guidelines of God's message (after hearing the message) whilst constantly repenting for their inevitable wrong doings will attain paradise and those who choose to not (after hearing the message) will reap the results of their evil deeds, eternal damnation.

There is an important distinction that needs to be made when I say that one chooses to go to hell. Many times, a person would object that it is inconceivable that one would choose to go into a burning fire eternally. However they are forgetting that hell fire is a choice not in the direct sense but in an indirect one, it is a consequence of rejecting the teachings and moral guidelines of God's message. When one chooses to freely reject God's Message, they are simultaneously choosing hell. This is what is meant, and it is in this way that hell fire is a choice made by the individual.

Conclusion


In conclusion, an eternal hell is justified because of the infinite severity of intentional sin due to the infinite status of God. Some sins are indeed infinitely severe due to their everlasting consequences on the soul of an individual and finally, hell fire is essentially an indirect choice made by an individual when they freely choose to reject the message of God. All these reasons strongly support the doctrine of an eternal hell.

I am afraid you are wrong. Infinite hellfire is not morally justified because no human can comprehend what that means. They are just words on a page. Very few people have ever experienced any kind of serious burn so they don't know what that is all about. Infinity is also a concept few can imagine. Since folks do not understand the punishment for sinning, they cannot make an informed decision. While infinite hellfire does sound unpleasant, I cannot imagine what it actually would be like.

 

[Goodfella]

It's kinda ridiculous that my 80 years on earth will determine my fate for the several hundred trillion years after that. Basically 0% of my existence will determine 100% of it and I can't see how that's fair at all.

 

[Borachio]

And each particular volition, is each one its own individual material thing?

Like some years ago when you fancied pork chops grilled over sage and onions:



Was that fancy its own particular material object? In your head, the way we usually imagine these things? In your brain?

Yup. There's nothing there that persuades me there's a non-material object involved.

I agree it's a puzzler, and one that's quite defeated me up to now: how, and why, I can make choices apparently out of thin air. But I do. It happens somehow. (Maybe the brain includes it's own RNG.)

I'm not sure how the soul, or immaterial mind, conjecture helps us out with this question in any way, though.

We're still left with the problem of how an immaterial thing can affect a material thing.