tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-216091202961011385.post7863034846088991301..comments2023-10-25T06:06:52.300-07:00Comments on Honest Search for Truth: Problem of Evil: Simplified, Rethought, and... Re-complicated.Joshua Willmshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00141590324355987426noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-216091202961011385.post-4464504555399286552016-11-10T11:32:31.339-08:002016-11-10T11:32:31.339-08:00Hi Joshua!
I am flipping through your blog posts...Hi Joshua! <br /><br />I am flipping through your blog posts and thoroughly enjoying each one. I am currently an atheist, but was raised a young-world conservative Christian, and at some point I've been basically everything in between, so I feel I have some thoughts that might be useful for you. <br /><br />First, do we consider human life to have infinite value? It's a bit of a thought experiment. We could go back and forth on whether or not this view is supported by the Bible, but I think common Christian rhetoric supports it. The idea that people are valuable to the extent that they are good is very anti-Jesus. Perhaps we could say people are valuable to the extent that they are loved. Many people say that we are loved by God and so we are all equal, which implies an infinite supply of love from God to smooth over differences in love received from our fellow humans. <br /><br />So let's just assume that we are infinitely loved and so infinitely valuable. Existence in Heaven and Hell are infinitely long (if that's what we take 'eternal' to mean). So, if we're speaking in infinites, doesn't that cancel out any differences mathematically (I might be wrong, I was never great at math)? And so wouldn't hell be infinitely awful and heaven infinitely good and so completely cancel each other out? <br /><br />Alternatively, have you considered Christianity without a hell in which mentions of it refer to life without God or goodness? Many references to hell were metaphorical, which could be because they were used to explain a place no one had ever seen, but could also be because they were used to explain an abstract concept. <br /><br />Another quick thought experiment for you (because I am also thinking and developing as I'm writing), why is it not evil for God to create a literal Hell? Is it because God is just goodness personified and so anything He does is good inherently no matter the result? This would be totally circular reasoning though because it would be saying: everything God does is good because God is good because everything he does is good. But if we don't use this reasoning, how else can we explain goodness theologically AND how else can we excuse God's creation of hell? <br /><br />Whew! That's a lot. I'm done. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-216091202961011385.post-25612187416346905992015-10-20T17:02:43.434-07:002015-10-20T17:02:43.434-07:00Thanks for commenting, Percy! Sorry it took me so ...Thanks for commenting, Percy! Sorry it took me so long to respond.<br /><br />I hate the idea too. As a medical student, the thought of anyone spending eternity in hell causes me deep pain--it has made my physically sick. At points where I think that the evidence points towards Christianity, these thoughts make it very difficult for me to operate, so I try to re-analyze the facts to see if I'm wrong regarding hell. It would also be very difficult for me to have a relationship with a God that chose to create, knowing that most would choose hell, instead of choosing to just create nothing.<br /><br />I must also agree--the math works out--but I also call BS.<br /><br />The statement in the TEDx Talk (thanks for watching!) wouldn't correlate too much. I think what you're pointing out is that people don't have a 'real' choice--their fate is chosen by geographical chance. Is that correct?<br /><br />In this post I'm not claiming to have answers, I'm just wrestling with a very tough issue and letting people in on my thought process.Joshua Willmshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00141590324355987426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-216091202961011385.post-44992880716756154982015-09-06T19:45:05.191-07:002015-09-06T19:45:05.191-07:00So for a few 'chosen' or who chose to beli...So for a few 'chosen' or who chose to believe that infinite pleasure of hell cancels out all the billions of souls in hell?? That might be mathematically provable, but I call BS. How does your statement of a persons geography of birth determine an individuals religion/belief in your TedEx talk correlate to this statement? Percyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071583753086901596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-216091202961011385.post-90787721713242323052015-08-26T07:24:03.375-07:002015-08-26T07:24:03.375-07:00I think you are correct. Thanks for reading and co...I think you are correct. Thanks for reading and commenting!Joshua Willmshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00141590324355987426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-216091202961011385.post-58099433419735930892015-08-20T17:10:54.639-07:002015-08-20T17:10:54.639-07:00Even under the model where heaven is infinitely mo...Even under the model where heaven is infinitely more good than hell is bad (allowable under your #2 quantitative model), I don't think you can retain omnibenevolence. Omni means all, and there is clearly no benevolence toward those in hell. So in that case, I think the most you can retain is partial benevolence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com