Jehovah’s Hell Is Logically Incoherent

This debate is between Phil Stilwell who is arguing for the proposition, and Cody Austin Pemberton who is arguing against the proposition. This debate will have the following structure.

1/6 Phil: Pro -> 700 words
2/6 Cody: Con -> 700 words
3/6 Phil: Pro -> 300 words
4/6 Cody: Con -> 300 words
5/6 Phil: Pro -> 100 words
6/6 Cody: Con -> 100 words

Proposition: Jehovah’s Hell Is Logically Incoherent

(1/6) Phil -> Pro -> 700 words

Argument #1

P1: Jehovah created Hell.
P2: Jehovah is just.
P3: Humans have a sin nature.
P4: Humans did not choose their sin nature.
P5: Humans can’t avoid sinning due to their sin nature.
P6: What cannot be avoided cannot be justly considered culpable.
P7: Jehovah deems every human who unavoidably sins culpable.
P8: Jehovah is not just. (P6 & P7)
P9: Jehovah cannot be both just and not just.
P10: Jehovah does not exist. (P2, P8 & P9)
CONCLUSION: Jehovah’s Hell does not exist. (P1 & P10)

We do not deem puppies who bark due to their “bark nature” culpable, much less deem them worthy of eternally torture as Jehovah does of every human upon that human’s very 1st sin. Why? Because we know that any creature acting according to their nature incurs no blame for acting consistent with that nature. We might deem them culpable after they have received training, but this is not what Jehovah does; he deems humans culpable upon their very 1st sin. If a puppy-owner claimed that torturing puppies was justified since the puppies were not “barkless” as the puppy-owner was, we would consider this absurd since the puppy-owner was not born with a “bark-nature”.

Argument #2

P1: Jehovah created Hell
P2: Jehovah does not lie.
P3: Jehovah claims to love humans.
P4: Any being claiming to love someone is patient towards that someone. (I Corinthians 13:4)
P5: Jehovah is patient towards those he claims to love. (P2, P3 & P4)
P6: Jehovah becomes wrathful upon every human’s very 1st offense to the degree that nothing less than eternal torment will appease his wrath.
P7: Anyone who becomes so wrathful over someone’s very 1st offense to the degree that nothing less than eternal torment will appease their wrath is not patient.
P8: Jehovah is not patient towards those he claims to love. (P6 & P7)
P9: Jehovah cannot be both patient and not patient towards those he claims to love.
P10: Jehovah does not exist. (P5, P8 & P9)
CONCLUSION: Jehovah’s Hell does not exist. (P1 & P10)

Imagine your neighbor claiming to love his children, then you finding him torturing his children in his basement. When you ask what he is doing, the claims that the torture is justified due to the children telling lies. When you ask him how long he, in his justice, intends to torture them, the calmly responds “forever”. What would you say about his claim to love his children?

Argument #3

P1: Jehovah created Hell.
P2: Jehovah is just.
P3: Jehovah cannot lie.
P4: Jehovah can do math.
P5: Jehovah claims that Jesus, through his suffering, paid the price for all sinners’ sins within 3 days.
P6: The 3-day price Jesus paid for all sinner’s sin is finite.
P7: Either the actual price of a sinner’s sin is eternal torment, or Jehovah unjustly allows sinners to suffer beyond the price of their sin.
P8: The actual price of a sinner’s sin is eternal torment. (P2 & P7)
P9: Eternal torment is infinite.
P10: The actual price of a sinner’s sin is infinite. (P9 & P10)
P11: Jesus’ finite suffering did not pay the actual price (infinite suffering) of a sinner’s sin. (P6 & P10)
P12: Jehovah either cannot do math or lied. (P5 & P11)
P13: Jehovah does not exist. (P3, P4, & P12)
CONCLUSION: Jehovah’s Hell does not exist. (P1 & P13)

Some might suggest that Jesus’ suffering was “eternal”. This can easily be shown to be completely incoherent by hypothetically adding a 4th day added to Jesus’ ordeal that would have added additional suffering beyond the 3 days Jesus was said to have suffered. You can’t fit a infinite amount of suffering into a finite number of days.

Note that, to even begin to justify Jehovah’s Hell, all three of these arguments must be successfully countered. I’m claiming it can’t be done for even one, and that Jehovah’s Hell is clearly logically incoherent.

Shame on the fear-mongers who promote this absurdity of a torturous Hell.

Proposition: Jehovah’s Hell Is Logically Incoherent

(2/6) Cody -> Con -> 700 words


1.god created humans
2.god wanted humans to frealy love him
3.if humans dont freely love him then it is only bye there nature that they love him and its not truly love
4.if god want human to freely love him then he had to create a world where it was possible for humans to sin and thus for humans to develup a sin nature
5.god wants humans to repent for there sins
6. if god is etenal repenting for your sins once covers all sins past present and future
7.if you only have to repent once then it is even easier to go to heaven then hell
8.humans freely chose to go to hell
9.god is just in leting people go to hell


1.when humans go to hell humans can still sin
2.humans will still sin in hell thus bringing futher seperation from god
3.humans sin is infinite
4.humans seperation from god is infinite
5. jesus died for your sins
6.jesus didnt sin
7.jesus died in his human nature and rose angen in his spirit nature
8.jesus human nature is still dead
9.jesus dying is enough to cover all sins

now phill i would like to ask on an athiestic world view where do you get your standerd of morals. if you are write and there is no god then we are only an advanced speceis of apes. we see apes steel from other apes and apes kill each other but we would not call it moraly wrong. i would also like to point out that in the big bang if the atomic week force was off one part out of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 then this would not be a life permitting univerce

Proposition: Jehovah’s Hell Is Logically Incoherent

(3/6) Phil -> Pro -> 300 words

In my opening post, I demonstrated that Jehovah and his Hell are logically incoherent due to…

  • humans’ inability to avoid sinning and consequent inculpability
  • the incompatibility between Jehovah’s claim to love humans and his wrathful condemnation to eternal torture of a child who commits their very first sin
  • the mathematical absurdity of claiming the finite period of suffering of Jesus is a just substitute for sinners’ deserved eternity of torture

I claimed Cody could not successfully counter all 3 of these arguments; a necessity to defeat the proposition.

I was correct.

I argued (argument #1) that, because all humans have sinned, sin is unavoidable, and is therefore neither culpable nor punishable in the same way that we don’t eternally torture puppies for barking in accordance to their “bark nature”.

Cody counters with a bare assertion contrary to the bible saying “humans freely chose to go to hell” (A8).

Wrong. All humans have sinned (Romans 3:23). We cannot avoid our sin nature (Romans 5:12) We have no choice but to sin (Psalm 51:5) . Sinners are not culpable for sinning in accordance with their “sin nature” any more than a puppy is culpable for barking in accordance with its “bark nature”.

Cody then claims that an eternal Hell is justified because sinners can still sin in Hell (B1 & B2). This is irrelevant as we have shown that sin is unavoidable and consequently inculpable.

Cody fails to address my arguments #2 and #3.

Cody’s other arguments have absolutely no relevance to the proposition and need not be addressed here. If you claim to have a golden square triangle in your pocket, and are shown that what is square cannot be triangular, exhibiting gold flakes as evidence for your golden square triangle is absurd.

Proposition: Jehovah’s Hell Is Logically Incoherent

(4/6) Cody -> Con -> 300 words

what i ment bye humans chose to go to hell was they dont exept gods lets supose that a man had terminal cancer now lets supose a docter has fond the cure for cancer and he is offering the cure for free but the man says no i dont want your cure for cancer now would you blame the docter for not healing the man i think not because the docter wont force his will on the man. and thats what i ment bye we chose to go to hell. you said i didnt cover 2 and 3 now i didn’t cover 2 but i did cover 3 and ill explane why i didn’t cover 2 later. in you third agument you clamed that jesus death wasn’t enough to cover sins because he was only dead for three hear is what i seid. 5. jesus died for your sins
6.jesus didnt sin
7.jesus died in his human nature and rose angen in his spirit nature
8.jesus human nature is still dead
9.jesus dying is enough to cover all sins now as to why i didn’t cover 2 is simply because i felt in my first argument disproved your second and first argument.if it is true that god is infinite then that means that with one repentence god forgives all sins past present and future and god can and does wate your hole life for that repentence thus i think that phill has shown no evidence that god and hell are logically incoherent

Proposition: Jehovah’s Hell Is Logically Incoherent

(5/6) Phil -> Pro -> 100 words

(Actually posted after Cody posted his final 100 word response.)

R1. We cannot avoid sinning. There is therefore no culpability in sinning.

R2. It’s statistically demonstrable that God waits only seconds after some humans’ 1st sin (“their whole life”) before killing them. Patient? But this isn’t important. The fact is that God, in his wrath, deems us worthy of eternal torment upon our 1st sin, demonstrating his impatience. Would you, without a “bark nature”, wrathfully deem a puppy worthy of eternal torment after barking due to its “bark nature” simply because he broke your no-barking rule?

R3. Jesus’ human nature is not experiencing eternal torment.

My initial arguments stand intact.

Proposition: Jehovah’s Hell Is Logically Incoherent

(6/6) Cody -> Con -> 100 words

(Actually posted prior to Phil’s 100 word response above.)

phill i am pressed for time so i have to give my closing remarks now.first i would like to apologize for all my spelling mistakes and gramer mistakes in my last responce i had little time and thus i rushed it. in this deabate phill listed 3 arguments that phill presented

#1humans have a sin nature so sin is unavoidable and therfore god is unjust in sending people to hell
#2 if god loves people then he should be patient but god sends people to hell after there first sin therefore god is inpatient
#3 god sends people to hell for an infinite amount of time for one sin jesus only died for three days so his death was not enough to cover are sins.

in retern i had 4 responses

1. a sin nature is in direct coralation with free will
2.god waits for are hole life for us to repent and repenting once is enough to cover all sins past present and future
3.jesus died in his humen nature and rose agen in his spirit nature and his human nature is still dead
4. we still sin in hell and that is why hell is infinite thus you can see god and hell are not incampatible and phill has faild to show that they are


14 thoughts on “Jehovah’s Hell Is Logically Incoherent

  1. Cody, if you ever want to clean up your spelling and grammar in a way that does not change the content of your arguments, send me the revised text, and I’ll try to make the switch. Cheers.

  2. cody austin pemberton says:

    thank you for this debate phill you are a good man

  3. Bolgoarth says:

    Thanks to Cody for participating. And with all due respect, your argument is nothing more than a series of unsupported assertions, many of which are incoherent.

    Phil, FTW.

  4. If there are any other Christians who believe in a torturous Hell and who would like to debate this topic, feel free to take my 1/6 700-word opening argument, and respond with your 2/6 700-word argument. I’ll simply place everything in another separate post.

  5. Mike Gantt says:

    Phil, I do not call myself a Christian but I do believe in Jesus just as He is presented in the Bible. Furthermore, I believe that through Him Everyone Is Going to Heaven. Nevertheless, I also believe that We Must Repent!

    I have engaged in dialogues (rather than formal debates) with Christians and with Atheists. I have even offered an invitation for challenge at my most vulnerable point.

    If you could like to engage me in dialogue on a subject of mutual interest, let me know.

    In any case, know that if you are suggesting that faith in Jesus Christ is logically incoherent I can only conclude you have not logically examined His claims.

    • Mike,

      Kudos to you for twisting the bible to mean something less cruel than what most bible readers see as clear. Neither you nor those positing a burning hell can present any consistent standard of hermeneutics. I’ve asked for one far times too many times to hope that you have one to offer. It would be nice if you could. I would then assess that standard against your other beliefs to see whether you apply your own standard consistently. But this threat of scrutiny is precisely why bible-believers do not dare present a standard. That means their critics are forced to run around from ad hoc doctrinal assertion to ad hoc doctrinal assertion, never being able to point out any infractions against that non-existent standard.

      So your Santa does not slide down chimneys. You’ve carved off the fat of your faith to make it a leaner and meaner and more palatable version. Sorry. It is still based on the absurdity of faith. You have a Jesus who absurdly blessed those who believed more upon less evidence. It gives you warm fuzzies, but is as close to truth as is a lean Santa.

      Shame on you for promoting the waste of life that your faith requires. Faith is an absurd concept upon which you are wasting your life. There is so much beauty in the world as it actually is! Why do you want to live with your eyes closed? Explore the real world. You know your prayers are not answered above chance. You know “God’s blessings” for your life are equivalent to chance given your circumstances. You know that the eye of god on the sparrow has never had an effect on the fate of that sparrow. You know the bible is a vague and vulgar book depicting a petty god all wrapped up in himself like a spoiled child who never grew up. You know these things, yet you intentionally muster up the emotional “certainty” necessary to validate your faith in order for you to feel insulated from the real world.

      It is the real world that is beautiful, not that false notion of some man living in your heart who made his truth known through a vague and silly book that has had more interpretations than it has had proponents.

      You are left with children. You can get away with telling children your silly fairy tales. And shame on you for this. This is in some way understandable since you are yourself a child still needing to believe what some other childish adult also told you. And so it continues like a germ borne by the winds of credulity.

      Wake up to life. And stop pretending you know anything about logic. If you claim to have a golden (resurrected) square triangle (loving and torturous god) in your pocket, and provide gold flakes to demonstrate your square triangle is golden (resurrected), I can dismiss your golden square triangle without even a glance at your gold flakes. The alleged resurrection of Jesus is not your weakest argument. It is the inherent logical absurdities in the concepts of faith, sin, and a 3-day “substitutionary” death of one man for the deserved eternal deaths of billions. Find a god who can do math.

      Stop lying to yourself and others. Jesus lives in your imagination, and no where else.

  6. Mike Gantt says:

    Phil, I’ve read Jesus’ words…and now I’ve read yours. The contrast in your respective worldviews is so striking that it would illogical to think that both of you could be right. Thus I must make a choice. Not only do I find His worldview more logically coherent than yours, I can’t help but notice that He was willing to die for the sake of promoting His – all while maintaining a heart of love even toward those who meant Him ill.

    If you expect a truly logical person to take your position seriously, I am not suggesting you are going to have to die for it while harboring no malice or resentment. But you are going to have to offer something more logical than the running around from ad hoc doctrinal assertion to ad hoc doctrinal assertion that you’ve just offered here.

    • You’ve made the wrong choice.

      You’ve chosen to follow your imagination. You will now pass this credulity on to others as if it were something noble. it is not. It is foolishness. And knock off the attribution of the quality “love” to a alleged god who condones slavery and sent the flood that killed millions of innocent children? It makes you look like an idiot.

      Now where is that necessary standard of hermeneutics you rely on that will not be forthcoming due to its mythical nature?

      Pathetic. These are the sort of people that will tell children they are naturally evil and deserve to die for their “sins”. Compare crimes rates to consider the dynamics of a self-fulfilling prophecy and why the citizens here in Japan are puzzled by Americans telling Japanese they need a savior. These confused christians will claim with a straight face that the 3-day death of Jesus is a “substitute” for the “deserved” eternal deaths of billions. Then they will claim to know something about logic. They are deceitful and fully deserving of contempt.

      Mike, do not post here again. You’re a fool, and are attempting to lead others into your idiocy. Not on my watch.

  7. tengoku1 says:

    If the God of the Bible actually tortured anyone forever, then we should rightly reject him. Fortunately, the God of the Bible said: “The soul that sins, it shall die”. Sadly, most people who claim to follow that God have twisted his words to mean: “The soul that sins shall be immortal in hell”.

    • I’m glad to hear you reject a burning hell. As Christian doctrine evolves to map to social norms, it becomes all the more apparent that the bible is simply a vague old book written by humans, and subject to their revisions.

      • tenkoku1 says:

        So you admit that you were mistaken in your point of “torturing forever”?

        • Oh, so it’s you who has the “correct” interpretation of scripture rather than the millions who disagree with you? Take your arrogance elsewhere. Any actual god of the universe who has the power to clearly personally reveal himself every human he actually loves would not communicate his truths in an old book so fuzzy it has lead to thousands of disagreeing denominations. Better find yourself a real god and a respectable source of his truth.

        • tengoku1 says:

          I am praying for you to come back to your loving Creator – Jesus Christ.

        • Send a video. I’ll post it as an example of the sorry waste of life christians condemn themselves to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s