I think this is an important moral question. We should acknowledge that there's very little
evidence for eternal damnation, but the believer can then choose two things (a) whether to believe that God would do this and (b) whether such behaviour is morally justified. It's a big question for the believer, because you're risking believing a lie and you're risking approving of something (that may or may not be true). "God is love, but eternally torments souls" is an incredible potential piece of libel.
When I was younger, I was accused of raping and murdering several women. The evidence for this was not very sound. My mother, who loves me very much, preached to all her friends and the media that my actions were not only acceptable but morally proper. She publicly condemned by defense attorney (who tried to disprove the accusations), since she said I'd done the right thing. She'd get very mad at anyone who said I'd done wrong. She'd spin great philosophies proving (in her mind) that this was a good thing I'd done.
No, of course none of that happened. But a loving mother wouldn't do such a thing. She'd hunt out and find all pieces of evidence that I was innocent of the slander against me. She'd critically analyze any suggestion that I'd done such monstrous deeds. She's proclaim all the reasons to disavow the very poor evidence against me. She loves me. She'd not be capable of entertaining the idea that I'd done evil.
So, a few challenges to the OP.
God both knows what will happen whilst people still having Free Will (Molinism)
But then you're given the question of why God would create the people He knew would fail the test. Their torment has no purpose, because there's no logical reason why He couldn't just create those who succeed. There's no violation of Free Will, it's not like God creates infinite people.
I dunno, it's like me pouring a barrel of cats and kittens into a campfire. I already know the cats are going to be able to leap out. I already know the kittens won't be able to. To say the kittens 'deserve' their slow, agonizing death is non-nonsensical.
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.
This might be the difference between 'sin' and 'morals', but I disagree. The severity of the evil is proportionate to how much harm you've caused, which is a function of how weak your victim is. The reason why stabbing someone is worse than playfully punching them (too hard) is because you've hurt the person more. The more powerful someone is, the less any moral transgression hurts them. The 'lighter' my moral transgression is, in impact, the less harm was caused.
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.
Intention matters, sure. But
intentionally throwing a balled up piece of paper at someone is much less immoral that striking them with your car. This is because the
damage caused is more. You cannot harm God.
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.
Here you contradict yourself. There's no permanent effect, except for what God wills. Even worse, God intentionally created the innocent victim, knowing that His other creation would victimize her.
When I was younger, I told my son to not play ball near my car. One day, he bounced the ball and dented the side-panel of my car. Now, the panel was plastic, so it could be just popped back out.
But I didn't do that. I left the dent in, and each day from then on, I beat my son with a stick as punishment for disobeying me and for creating permanent damage to my car. One day, as he was crying and calling me evil, I took him out back and poured a bucket of kittens onto a fire just to prove my point about how he deserved it.
No, none of that is true, obviously. If someone tried to justify me beating my son daily, they'd not only be morally incorrect, but they'd be factually incorrect. I've never done such a thing.
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.
It's an incoherent stance, firstly, since there's no need for the test. But even if there's a 'logical' reason for the test, there's no reason to create the beings that would fail the test. When I take a calculus test, the teacher does not include all the grades in the school and our pets. We already know the children and the animals cannot do calculus.
The second major question is
who benefits from the creation of Eternal Fire? God is infinite, He doesn't need Eternal Fire to justify His authority. The faithful are only potentially harmed, if they have any loved ones burning (they could become callous to the fates of their formed loved ones, but how is that 'good'?). The punishment doesn't benefit the sinner.
I dunno. To me, it takes an incredible amount of callousness to choose to justify such things, especially given the strong lack of evidence. What if God does not do such things? Should I be
proud of my mother, who sought to justify the evil of which I was falsely accused? Or has her beliefs blighted my relationship with her?
