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
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 Continue reading →
Last Thursday, Judge Jehovah, the only judge in Absurdburg, delivered from the bench an edict that shocked many in the community. The edict stipulated that Euthyphro, a local philosopher, have his wife taken from him, and be given to a man named Christopher McCredulous to be raped in the park across from the courthouse in full view of the entire town.
Thus says the Lord: I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.
(2 Samuel 12:11-14)
This was in the context of King David’s sin of adultery and murder of the woman’s husband.
Note how the women involved in this situation suffer much more than the one actually deserving punishment.
McCredulous performed the rape as stipulated in the edict Sunday afternoon while Euthyphro wept, restrained by 2 police officers, and as the town looked on. When finished, McCredulous was asked by reporters whether he felt any guilt or shame after committing such an act. “Who am I to question a legal edict uttered by Judge Jehovah himself?” he responded.
Do you think you would obey a biblical command even if it went against your moral commonsense? Is taking someone else’s wife and raping her in broad daylight moral because the wife has been taking from that man and given to you to rape?
In what local authorities call one of the worse cases of absurdity seen to date, Jehovah, the self-proclaimed mayor of Absurdburg and the alleged father of a multitude of children was questioned on suspicion of child abuse. Found in the basement of his suburban home were several torture apparati along with a shipping receipt from Dante Corporation.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whore-mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelations 21:8)
And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25:30).
But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth… (Luke 13:27-28).
Upon being questioned by reporters, Jehovah initially said “But I love my children! Why all this focusing on the negative? If they only obey me and follow me, they have absolutely nothing to fear!”
The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. (Jeremiah 31:3)
It is of the LORD’s mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. (Lamentations 3:22)
The notion of a “sin nature” is, by the admission of most theologians, rather critical to the coherency of Christianity. This is how it’s normally presented. Adam did not have a sin nature. Yet he sinned. As his genetic descendants, we now have a sin nature. It seems this sin nature is somehow different to Adam’s nature before he sinned.
“The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men.”
Quite clearly the consequences are different. Adam would have lived forever had he not sinned it is claimed. Yet we are condemned to die due to our sinfulness it seems. Yet this says nothing about the sin nature itself.
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
I’d like to ask for clarification on the concept of a sin nature. Here are a few questions.
Is the sinful newborn (Psalm 51:5) deserving of hellfire?
If Adam did not have a sin nature, then how was he able to sin?
If your answer to this is simply “free will”, then what is the difference between “free will” and a “sin nature”?
Suppose we were created without a sin nature like Adam. Would we be less prone to sin?
Why did God map our sin nature to genetics (passed on from Adam) rather than just giving everyone free will as he did with Adam?
If our sin nature was not our choice, why are we condemned for living according to our nature?
Please give feedback in the comment box below.
Thanks for your responses.
A life without emotions would not be much of a life. Just ask any computer.
You: “So, what’s it like being you?”
Computer: “Your question is meaningless. Don’t you have some numbers for me to crunch?”
Computers seem to live lives devoid of joy or sorrow or anger or affection. They just compute.
Humans, on the other hand, don’t compute well. In most domains of human activity, humans do not well calculate risks accurately. This is especially true for gambling, drinking, romancing, and eating, all which have an army of emotional gnomes pulling us towards the warmth of excess. This is also true for believing.
Most often, the force behind choosing an ideology is not what it should be; the truth value of the ideology. It is usually instead a team of selfish pestering emotions that are all, like pestering gnomes, attempting to maximize personal contentment by pushing and pulling you towards the fluffiest and warmest fiction
There are pushing gnomes and pulling gnomes. The gnomes that push are as follows. Continue reading →
This stance is not very popular. Having taken this stance, I cannot make statements such as the following.
Hitler was evil.
You shouldn’t intentionally hurt other people.
You should live altruistically.
Because I deny objective morality, I cannot use terms such as “evil” or “righteous” in my description of people or actions. I am confined to an ontology that ends at my emotional response to people and their actions. The actions of Hitler make me extremely angry, but they were not evil actions. Attributing evil seems to be merely a human attempt to convert a subjective emotion into an objective quality. This conversion takes place in only in the mind. The term “evil” has no consistent definition, but rather vaguely maps onto emotional dispositions towards particular actions. Continue reading →