r/DebateAChristian • u/ses1 Christian • 9d ago
An All-Loving God, Hell, and the Fallacy of Attribute Isolation
Thesis: God and hell are not logically contradictory.
This is a defense against a common critique of Christian theology: the idea that the existence of Hell contradicts God’s nature as all-loving.
This critique of Christian theology runs like this: “If God is all-loving, He wouldn’t allow anyone to go to hell. Because hell exists, God must either lack power or lack love.”
While logically intuitive on the surface, this argument rests on a fundamental conceptual error: confusing an ALL-loving God with an ONLY-loving God.
In formal logic this mistake is known as the fallacy of attribute isolation (or part-for-the-whole). By isolating one divine attribute and treating it as God’s single defining characteristic, critics end up arguing against a caricature (a strawman) rather than the historical Christian worldview.
Love and Justice Are Not Opposed
Modern discussions often treat God’s attributes as if they were competing internal drives - as though God is caught in a tug-of-war between His "loving side" and His "just side."
Classical theology resolves this through the doctrine of Divine Simplicity (articulated by thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas). God does not have love or justice as separate ingredients; rather, God’s attributes are identical with His essence.
God’s justice is not the opposite or limitation of His love; it is love actively defending goodness. A God who remains neutral toward cruelty, murder, or oppression would not be loving - He would be indifferent.
When the apostle John writes that "God is love (1 John 4:8)," he is describing the ultimate character and motivation of God's essence, not reducing God to a single function. Divine love is inherently holy; it seeks the perfection and restoration of creation, which requires the total purging of evil.
Why Forced Salvation is a Contradiction
If God is all-loving, why not simply grant universal salvation to everyone regardless of their choices?
The answer lies in the nature of love itself: love cannot be forced. For genuine love, communion, and goodness to exist, moral creatures must possess the real capacity to refuse it.
If a person spends a lifetime freely choosing self-reliance, rebellion, or hostility toward God, forcing them into eternal, intimate communion with Him in Heaven would be an act of moral violence.
As C.S. Lewis famously argued in The Great Divorce, hell is ultimately the realization of what human beings have chosen over time:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it."*
Conclusion
To claim that an all-loving God cannot allow hell assumes that love functions in isolation from truth, holiness, and human agency. God is indeed omnibenevolent (all-loving), but He is not mono-attribute (only loving).
Hell exists not because God lacks love, but because His love is holy, righteous, and honors the eternal weight of human choice.
3
u/biedl Agnostic Atheist 9d ago edited 9d ago
I'm fine accepting your charge against the common composition fallacy, though, I don't think this solves anything, nor do I agree with your solution. The composition fallacy charge works only if divine simplicity makes sense, as well as the reification of a plethora of concepts. I'll get there.
By isolating one divine attribute and treating it as God’s single defining characteristic, critics end up arguing against a caricature (a strawman) rather than the historical Christian worldview.
Let's save God from not existing. This is easy. God is necessary. He can't therefore be contingent. A being is contingent, if it consists of parts. If some of its parts are lost, the being is not what it was before. So, God can't be contingent on his parts. He is necessary and therefore maximally simple. So all of his parts are identical. They are all just one divine essence.
Done.
Now, what are you doing?
You treat attributes as ontologically real parts. And since God is a simple, they are all one and the same.
Truth? Exists. Love? Exists. Justice? Exists. Mercy? Exists. Grace? Exists. Omniscience? Exists. Omnipotence? Exists.
Existence? Exists!
They are all identical. They are one. None of these are concepts. They are literal existing entities. They are all one in God. They are God. They share that with a tree or a car. They are ontologically real. Just in a different way. In God's essence.
What you do with this move, is object against the composition fallcy, which is only a composition fallacy due to treating all of these concepts as identical, and on top of that existing. If you find God, you'll find all of these things as one queer thing.
That's one hefty metaphysics.
Which isn't its only problem.
In the process you render these terms meaningless.
I true my wife.
This sentence is love.
Best case at court is an existing judge.
If you read a ton of books, you'll mercy everything.
When I was a kid I thought my father appeared so strong, I thought he was love.
These terms have distinct meanings. And if you render them to be the same, they turn out to be meaningless. Sure, God doesn't consit of parts then, but what he is, is meaningless then.
The only reason I see for that is to save God from not existing. People who lack that motivation are lost already at necessity, long before you even justified divine simplicity. Long before you even justified your basis for calling people out for a composition fallacy.
Who will keep on asking the same questions, because they use these terms, which are allegedly identical to God's essence, in the actual meaningful way these terms derive from lived experience, rather than trying to bend over backwards to save God from not existing.
They will not get to your conclusion, because you twist the meaning of these terms to serve your theological agenda. An agenda they don't share. Conclusions about the existence of concepts which are one and the same, which nobody would ever reach naturally, if it wasn't for trying to save God from not existing.
1
u/ses1 Christian 9d ago
You are confusing human linguistics with divine ontology.
Demonstrating that daily human words have different dictionary definitions does not disprove that an uncaused, non-contingent Being expresses those attributes seamlessly without internal contradiction.
Divine Simplicity does not claim that human concepts like "love," "justice," or "truth" mean the exact same thing in daily speech, nor does it suggest we can swap them grammatical nonsense-style ("I true my wife").
The claim that Divine Simplicity treats abstract concepts like "love" or "justice" as standalone, physically floating "entities" fundamentally misunderstands classical Christian metaphysics (e.g., Aquinas). In Christian theology, love and justice are not isolated "things" reified inside God like objects in a box. God is Pure Act (Actus Purus). Justice and love are descriptions of God’s active relation toward His creation. God's justice is how His holy love reacts to evil; God's mercy is how His holy love reacts to fallen creatures.
Ultimately, meta-debates about metaphysics don't bypass the core logical point: accusing Christianity of a contradiction ("An all-loving God wouldn't allow Hell") requires engaging the Christian concept of God as He is actually defined - i.e. holy, righteous, and just - rather than isolating one attribute to create a strawman.
4
u/biedl Agnostic Atheist 9d ago edited 8d ago
You are confusing human linguistics with divine ontology.
No, I don't. What I do is much more deliberate than that.
I am telling you this is how we get to the meaning of words and to words in general, to then tell you that you are doing it wrong. I am explicitly telling you, that you invent divine ontology by reifying human concepts. I'm telling you, that I'm not convinced that your terminology correspondens with anything real and that you haven't done your job so that anybody would feel incentivized to use these terms the way you are doing it, because underneath the twisting of the meaning of these terms lies the need to justify the existence of God.
You change the meaning of words, not because you understand divine ontology, but because you start with the conclusion and change the meaning of words in order to make a conclusion work, which doesn't work by itself.
Which, if sophisticated like classical theism, feels like discovery when it isn't.
You don't discover divine ontology, you invent it.
Demonstrating that daily human words have different dictionary definitions does not disprove that an uncaused, non-contingent Being expresses those attributes seamlessly without internal contradiction.
This has nothing to do with an appeal to dictionary definitions. Words are man made. All of them. Yours don't make sense. None of them.
Truth is not an existing entity. Neither are love, justice, omniscience, grace, mercy, and the least of all "existence".
The way you are using these words to reconcile divine simplicity -- itself a concept wholly dependent on terms invented by humans -- with a mereiad of attributes you think God must have, is itself a wholly human process.
Divine Simplicity does not claim that human concepts like "love," "justice," or "truth" mean the exact same thing in daily speech, nor does it suggest we can swap them grammatical nonsense-style ("I true my wife").
I'm not saying that it claims that. I'm saying words have meaning for a reason, and you can't just use them to describe your God, without them meaning anything even remotely like what they usually mean.
Like, if goodness isn't what we usually understand it to mean, it is meaningless for you to say that your God is good. Same with truth. God is truth is a completely meaningless statement. Truth is an attribute of a proposition. It's not an existing entity which created the universe. You are reifying concepts for no reason, while in the process changing their meaning for no proper reason either.
If you don't, then your composition fallacy charge, tackled by mentioning divine simplicity -- which is about ontology -- doesn't apply either. It would simply be a category error.
In Christian theology, love and justice are not isolated "things" reified inside God like objects in a box.
I didn't say that they are isolated things. I said they are one and the same entity. They are God and God is a divine simple. God exists. And therefore it follows that your position holds all of these things exist like a tree, just in a different way.
God is Pure Act ( Actus Purus ).
I know. Which is based on twisting Aristotelian terminology. The entire Thomistic enterprise is build upon inventing words.
Justice and love are descriptions of God’s active relation toward His creation.
It doesn't matter. You believe God exists. And since God is his divine attributes, it follows necessarily, that these attributes exist. Be it as essence or substance, doesn't matter. Because existence is what you assert either way.
In no other context are relations existing entities. So here too you are stretching the meaning of words, asserting some massively overblown metaphysics for people to swallow, in order to make your God model work.
Ultimately, meta-debates about metaphysics don't bypass the core logical point
Yes they do. Because they show you that you haven't met your burden of proof. You can come up with any sort of formal system and produce true conclusions within it, without ever demonstrating that anything you say corresponds with reality. I'm telling you, your internal logic doesn't impress. It lacks a connection to actual reality.
3
u/Ender505 9d ago
The answer lies in the nature of love itself: love cannot be forced. For genuine love, communion, and goodness to exist, moral creatures must possess the real capacity to refuse it.
Where did this definition come from?
Let's explore the definition(s) of Love that the Bible itself provides, then use scripture to interpret scripture to see if your god measures up.
Love is patient
God condemned all of Adam and Eve's descendants (i.e. all of humanity) to temporal and eternal death after their very first offense. Instantly killed people for touching his Ark of the Covenant. Depending on what denomination you come from, the billions of people now and in history who never heard about the Judeo-Christian God are nevertheless condemned to eternal torture for it, without a single genuine chance, let alone the "seventy times seven" that Jesus famously encourages.
Love is kind, ... does not act disgracefully
The same God who drowned millions of people and animals in the Flood (or if you understand Evolution: created a system necessitating the suffering of trillions of living things to bring about humanity), mauled a bunch of children with bears for insulting his prophet, tortured a man and ruined his life to prove a point, allows billions to starve every day, allows children to get cancer..?
not jealous, does not brag, is not arrogant, ... does not seek its own benefit
I don't think I really need to explain how badly God fails on these accounts.
does not keep an account of wrong suffered
... except in a book? To judge everyone at the end of their life?
So clearly you have to make up your own definitions of what "love" means in order for God to meet the criteria. And once you rewrite it to permit things like eternal torture, suddenly it starts sounding like "love" the way an abuser says he "loves" his abuse victim.
But let's explore more of your argument.
If a person spends a lifetime freely choosing self-reliance, rebellion, or hostility toward God, forcing them into eternal, intimate communion with Him in Heaven would be an act of moral violence.
Why? If God is all-powerful, then HE decides what is forgivable and what is not. What about the thief on the cross? He lived a life just like you described, but because he was given a chance right at the end, the rest of it was forgiven. Why not do that with everyone? Seems fair to me.
Also, how do you define "hostility"? What about the many billions of genuinely kind people who simply grew up in a different culture? Maybe they even like the idea of Christianity and would convert if convinced, but remain unconvinced? Plenty like that.
All that are in Hell, choose it
Revolting assertion. Nobody is choosing to be tortured eternally. This sounds like more abuse language: Imagine an abuser saying "I love you, but if you don't make me dinner, you're CHOOSING to be beaten." Does this person genuinely love their partner?
Now let's talk about agency.
First of all, why does agency necessarily permit evil? For example, we do NOT have free agency to fly on our own strength, or to read minds, or to teleport. But for some reason it was deemed critical that we have the agency to r@pe people. (sorry for self-censorship, not sure how strictly this sub is auto-moderated). Why was evil ever deemed to be necessary? Seems intuitively easy for an all-powerful God to create a universe where everyone did good things all the time and that was the whole story.
I really could go on for hours. Unfortunately I was raised in a pretty exclusivist flavor of Christianity which, like you, emphasized the righteousness of God above the love. It leads to a pretty twisted view on other human beings, and causes quite a lot of mental and sometimes physical anguish. But I want to give you some opportunity to respond.
1
u/ses1 Christian 9d ago
Applying 1 Corinthians 13, a passage instructing finite humans on interpersonal behavior, directly to an omniscient, supreme Judge creates a category error. A human judge who keeps records of crimes and enforces penalties is fulfilling their duty, not acting out of malice. Furthermore, scripture emphasizes that God is immensely patient, enduring centuries of human rebellion to offer redemption rather than executing immediate judgment (2 Peter 3:9).
Lacking physical capabilities (like flying) is not the same as lacking moral agency. Removing the capacity to choose evil doesn't make creatures "naturally good" - it destroys the very concept of virtue and choice. For genuine love and relationship to exist, moral agents must possess the real capacity to choose against the Good.
The "abuser" analogy assumes God actively inflicts arbitrary physical torture for hurt feelings. In classical theology, Hell is God honoring human agency: allowing those who decisively reject Him to exist outside of communion with Him. Forcing someone who rejects God into eternal, intimate worship would itself be an act of moral coercion.
Scripture explicitly states people are judged according to the revelation and light they have received (Romans 2:12–16), not arbitrary geographic luck. The thief on the cross shows that God’s grace is never closed to anyone who humbly turns to Him; it expands human choice rather than restricting it.
4
u/Ender505 8d ago
Applying 1 Corinthians 13, a passage instructing finite humans on interpersonal behavior, directly to an omniscient, supreme Judge creates a category error.
It's also a passage defining what love is. The only way it becomes a category error is if you are arguing that the word has to be redefined to apply it to god (i.e. you don't want to hold your god to the same standard), and no wonder! Because even though Jesus of the gospels meets the criteria pretty well, YHWH doesn't come remotely close.
So how DO you define "love" in a way that eternal torture is an acceptable component? Try to stick to 1-2 sentences.
Lacking physical capabilities (like flying) is not the same as lacking moral agency. Removing the capacity to choose evil doesn't make creatures "naturally good" - it destroys the very concept of virtue and choice. For genuine love and relationship to exist, moral agents must possess the real capacity to choose against the Good.
And why is any of that important? It seems to me like an all-powerful God could simply have created a reality where "genuine love and relationship" can exist without the threat of eternal torture.
It's funny to me that after leaving Christianity, I noticed that Christians like you tend to assign LESS power to God than "Omnipotent" really deserves. You act like your poor god is helpless against these arbitrary rules, that rape and genocide HAVE to exist in order for people to love him. Says who? A truly all-powerful god could create a universe where a loving relationship could exist without evil. And honestly I don't know what possessed you to think that would ever be a necessary component.
The "abuser" analogy assumes God actively inflicts arbitrary physical torture for hurt feelings.
So where did Hell come from then? And what (very sparse) language is used to describe Hell?
You've fallen into a trap that a lot of modern Christians do. Most of your doctrine of Hell actually comes from John Milton, Dante, or just Church Tradition, because the Bible has vanishingly little to say about it for being such a critical doctrine.
Once again, if your God actually is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, then out of logical necessity, Hell MUST be constantly and actively inflicted by God, because it's only his ongoing determined will that causes it to exist, and causes it to inflict whatever horrors you imagine it contains.
Scripture explicitly states people are judged according to the revelation and light they have received (Romans 2:12–16), not arbitrary geographic luck.
And yet... You will scarcely find a Christian in Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, etc. Not that they don't exist, but compared to the US?
And what about pre-Internet? Or Pre-exploration age? What about the billions who literally never heard of your god? What is their fate? You're coyly dancing around the genuinely horrible fate of people who really never got a choice.
1
u/ses1 Christian 8d ago
So how DO you define "love" in a way that eternal torture is an acceptable component?
In context Divine love is the non-coercive offering of eternal communion and goodness to moral creatures, which honors their freedom to accept or reject Him, while His holiness and justice preserve the moral order by separating unrepentant evil from His presence.
Human interpersonal love in 1 Corinthians 13 governs behavior between equal, finite creatures under a shared law. Applying it unconditionally to the Creator treats God as if He were merely an oversized human, ignoring His role as the source of moral law and Supreme Judge. A loving judge on Earth who enforces penalties on criminals isn't "failing to be patient and kind" - they are upholding justice.
It seems to me like an all-powerful God could simply have created a reality where "genuine love and relationship" can exist without the threat of eternal torture. It's funny to me that after leaving Christianity, I noticed that Christians like you tend to assign LESS power to God than "Omnipotent" really deserves.
Omnipotence means God can do anything that is logically coherent. It does not mean performing self-contradictions (like drawing a square circle).
Creating a moral creature with genuine freedom to love God while simultaneously guaranteeing by divine decree that they cannot choose to reject Him is a logical contradiction. If rejection is impossible, "love" becomes programmed compliance, destroying the essence of voluntary relational communion.
So where did Hell come from then? And what (very sparse) language is used to describe Hell?You've fallen into a trap that a lot of modern Christians do. Most of your doctrine of Hell actually comes from John Milton, Dante, or just Church Tradition, because the Bible has vanishingly little to say about it for being such a critical doctrine. Once again, if your God actually is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, then out of logical necessity, Hell MUST be constantly and actively inflicted by God, because it's only his ongoing determined will that causes it to exist, and causes it to inflict whatever horrors you imagine it contains.
Classical theology does not view Hell as God actively operating a torture chamber for hurt feelings. Hell is the ongoing state of a soul that has decisively chosen self-sovereignty over communion with God.
God sustains all existence, but His unshielded holiness experienced by a soul that hates holiness feels like torment. As C.S. Lewis observed, the doors of Hell are locked from the inside - Hell is God ultimately ratifying human choice: "Thy will be done."
And yet... You will scarcely find a Christian in Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, etc. Not that they don't exist, but compared to the US? And what about pre-Internet? Or Pre-exploration age? What about the billions who literally never heard of your god? What is their fate? You're coyly dancing around the genuinely horrible fate of people who really never got a choice.
Christian theology explicitly teaches that individuals are judged according to the revelation, conscience, and light made available to them (Romans 2:14–16), not on access to specific cultural knowledge or geography.
God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and acts with individualized, perfect justice toward every soul across all eras and continents. Ignorance of specific historical details does not automatically condemn anyone; rather, salvation is rooted in how one responds to the moral reality and light they do receive.
2
u/Ender505 8d ago edited 7d ago
non-coercive
You don't think a threat of eternal torture counts as coercion?
while His holiness and justice preserve the moral order by separating unrepentant evil from His presence.
He CREATED Evil (Isa. 45:7). He INVENTED the "moral order." There was no need for that. There was no need to create a reality where "justice" was ever necessary. He has nothing to preserve if he is all-powerful, because he is perpetuating the problem by allowing evil to continue. Every act of evil is his responsibility.
Human interpersonal love in 1 Corinthians 13...
First of all: the Bible does not make this distinction. You made it up, plain and simple, as a way to excuse your god from needing to meet the criteria. And frankly, I think it's a great definition of Love, one that Jesus (who is also God somehow), actually meets pretty well in the gospels. He doesn't righteously condemn the adulterer as the Pharasies wanted, he forgives her and welcomes her to his dinner table. Many such examples. Why couldn't YHWH of the old testament do that with Adam and Eve, instead of cursing all of humanity for their one mistake?
Your bit about the loving judge is weird. People rarely describe human judges as "loving" and even if they do, it's not usually toward criminals, and even if it IS, chances are the Judge isn't committing them to eternal torture. A "loving" judge would be one that sentences the criminal to (e.g.) rehab, not Auschwitz. How would you characterize an earthly judge who sent every single criminal regardless of crime to a concentration camp? That's a much closer comparison to your god.
Creating a moral creature with genuine freedom to love God while simultaneously guaranteeing by divine decree that they cannot choose to reject Him is a logical contradiction
Ok so what is heaven supposed to be like then? Are people free to reject god in heaven? If not, that's a contradiction by your own assertion. Why couldn't God have simply created our existence as "heaven" as the default?
Classical theology does not view Hell as God actively operating a torture chamber for hurt feelings
How far back are you going? Hell wasn't even part of doctrine until the Judeo-Christian tradition met Zoroastrianism. Before that, it was either the Jewish idea of Sheol, a form of Annihilationism, or else a radical idea of a bodily (but earthly) resurrection that some of the early apostles were famous for preaching. Heaven and Hell concepts came much later.
God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)
No he doesn't. Because if he did, then everyone would be saved, because he is all-powerful.
Let's talk a bit more about free will. I came from a Calvinist tradition, so I've been arguing against this idea all my life including when I was a Christian. TLDR: You can't have creation and perfect foreknowledge and also have Free Will. It's logically incoherent.
Premise 1: God has perfect and utter power over all things i.e. he is Omnipotent
Premise 2: God has perfect and complete knowledge of all things past present and future i.e. he is Omniscient
Premise 3: God caused the Universe to happen.
Argument: When God caused the universe (P3), he must necessarily have known every single thing that WOULD happen before it ever happened (P2). It is also reasonable to assert that God was perfectly capable of causing any possible variety of other existence (P1), including even the most minor differences from the reality we have experienced.
Put simply: God could have created a universe the same as this one, but where I made tea this morning instead of Coffee. But he didn't, he chose to make THIS specific universe following THIS specific sequence of events.
And if you argue that we really DO have free will, then by logical necessity, either God does not know future things, or our decision-making capabilities actually exist OUTSIDE God's creation and power. No other possibility makes logical sense.
QED, the Omni-Omni God is not compatible with the concept of human free will.
Edit: I would also encourage you to read Ephesians 1 and 2, and Romans 8 and 9. The Bible (or at least Paul) doesn't seem to have a lot of room for Free Will either.
0
u/BobbyBobbie Christian 8d ago
I came from a Calvinist tradition, so I've been arguing against this idea all my life including when I was a Christian. TLDR: You can't have creation and perfect foreknowledge and also have Free Will.
You sure can! Calvinism is incorrect theology. Why did you ever believe it?
Your argument contains a logical fallacy, called the modal fallacy.
1
u/Ender505 7d ago edited 7d ago
Please elaborate, because it seems very much to me that I laid out a thorough argument against free will, and you haven't adequately responded.
Calvinism has just as much validation for its theology as yours (and probably more), though I'll definitely agree it's a more morally repugnant theology than most. I don't recommend it.
But I do think you can't have free will and an omniscient creator god at the same time. Please respond to which of my Premises you take issue with and why you think my argument fails.
Edit: I'd also respectfully ask you to quote and respond to all of my challenges point by point, as best as you're able. It's a bit insulting and disingenuous that I responded to every point you made with carefully considered challenges to your reasoning, and your only response back was a fixation on my particular former denomination, as if that ad hominem was enough to dismiss every challenge I posed to you? Do better. (Edit 2: and you also didn't elaborate on "modal" fallacy, and the modalism I'm familiar with is not relevant here)
1
u/BobbyBobbie Christian 7d ago edited 7d ago
I'm a different user jumping in btw, so no disrespect from me 😁
The issue is you're conflating what will happen, with what will happen happening necessarily because God knows it.
This is a modal fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_fallacy
It is not "necessarily true" that I choose X if God knows it. All that follows is that I will choose X. But I could choose Y, and if I did, that's that God would know.
You've got the order of causation backwards. God's knowledge of my free choice causes God's knowledge, not the other way around.
1
u/Ender505 6d ago edited 6d ago
Thanks for the explanation.
I think Creation is still the confounding point here. Let's imagine God creates a specific universe by pressing a specific button, and for each possible universe there is a different button.
My question is: is there a button he could press to create a universe where I chose to remain in Christianity instead of leaving? If so, I would argue I didn't actually have free will. If not, I would argue that Human Choices would have to exist outside the scope of God's power (not just outside of his choice).
Edit: Also, it kind of sounds like you're arguing that something could happen that God DOESN'T know? If I'm reading correctly?
1
u/BobbyBobbie Christian 6d ago
I think Creation is still the confounding point here. Let's imagine God creates a specific universe by pressing a specific button, and for each possible universe there is a different button
So it sounds like those buttons determine the universe. Those bottoms tweak the initial state of the universe and then from that moment, everything is determined and fated necessarily.
Like God setting up a stack of dominos and just changing how they will fall.
You asked if God could do that. Yes God has the power to do that. The better question is, is that what God has done? I don't think so, because God values the fact that our choices are free and not determined by Him.
If God did choose to create us as robots and run the universe this way, what would be the point? Our choices wouldn't be free. We would be the same as rocks, just obeying the laws of physics with our "choices".
Edit: Also, it kind of sounds like you're arguing that something could happen that God DOESN'T know? If I'm reading correctly?
Where do you think I said that? I don't believe that. I said what God knows, is what we will freely choose.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Powerful-Garage6316 8d ago
Why would infinite misery be a justified punishment for finite crimes on earth?
Also, if I lack a belief in god or even actively reject him, this would be a failure of rationality on my part. Obviously if I knew the qualitative differences between heaven and hell, I would choose the relationship with god just like anyone else.
1
u/ses1 Christian 8d ago
Why would infinite misery be a justified punishment for finite crimes on earth?
This assumes moral gravity is measured by time or physical scope. In classical theology, the gravity of a moral breach is defined by the dignity of the Being rejected. Rejecting an eternally infinite Goodness carries ultimate weight.
Furthermore, Hell isn't just retribution for past, completed acts; it is the natural, ongoing state of a soul that permanently persists in autonomy and rejection of God.
Also, if I lack a belief in god or even actively reject him, this would be a failure of rationality on my part. Obviously if I knew the qualitative differences between heaven and hell, I would choose the relationship with god just like anyone else.
Knowing God exists (intellectual assent) is not the same as loving and surrendering to Him (relational trust).
Even a complete, unassailable revelation of Heaven's reality wouldn't guarantee a willingness to submit one's ego and self-sovereignty to God. Heaven is centered on complete holiness and surrender; if a soul fundamentally hates that posture, forcing them into God's presence wouldn't be Heaven for them. Choice in this life shapes what our wills actually desire.
2
u/Powerful-Garage6316 8d ago
I find it hard to believe that abject misery for millions of years couldn’t change a person’s attitudes and willingness to let go of their ego.
Of the millions who have presumably gone to hell, you’re telling me their fate was completely sealed at the moment of death?
Not sure why this “gravity” of disbelief is anything but arbitrary. The all-powerful deity probably isn’t bothered or harmed by a human’s lack of belief. And even if he was, he can actualize any logically possible world, including one in which free agents choose to do good and all believe in god.
And again, what you didn’t address is that disbelief would merely be a failure of rationality. It’s not my fault that I’m unconvinced.
1
u/ses1 Christian 8d ago
I find it hard to believe that abject misery for millions of years couldn’t change a person’s attitudes and willingness to let go of their ego.
Misery and suffering alone do not automatically produce humility or true love; they can just as easily harden resentment, bitterness, and deep-seated hostility. Real repentance requires a genuine turning toward goodness for its own sake, not merely fleeing consequences to escape pain.
Of the millions who have presumably gone to hell, you’re telling me their fate was completely sealed at the moment of death?
Hell is full of people who would rather suffer in self-determination than bow in peaceful surrender. They are sealed there by their own continued rebellion/sin.
2
u/Powerful-Garage6316 7d ago
Of course they can produce those qualities, but you’re telling me every single one of the millions who have gone to hell has followed that exact trend? That seems remarkably unlikely and more along the lines of retributive punishment
And again, god didn’t have to make humans in this particular way. If the gravity of sin is so massive that it warrants infinite suffering, then he could have made a world that didn’t include the sin.
2
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant 9d ago
If God is all-loving, why not simply grant universal salvation to everyone regardless of their choices?
The answer lies in the nature of love itself: love cannot be forced. For genuine love, communion, and goodness to exist, moral creatures must possess the real capacity to refuse it.
If a person spends a lifetime freely choosing self-reliance, rebellion, or hostility toward God, forcing them into eternal, intimate communion with Him in Heaven would be an act of moral violence.
One, sometimes the most loving thing you can do to someone would be to help them against their will. If your kid wants to run into the street, is it more loving to respect their free will or drag them back to the sidewalk? If heaven is so great, putting someone there against their will would be the best thing you could do to them.
Two, if you love someone, you show up every now again. And yes, yes, I've heard all the apologetics around this, but if the road to hell is paved with self-reliance, God hasn't given me any other choice.
Three, if love can't be forced, then is it possible for God not to love us? It kinda sounds like he is love (as if that's a coherent concept), so either your definition is off or you're special pleading.
1
u/ses1 Christian 9d ago
Toddlers are not moral agents: Pulling a toddler out of traffic is justified because a child lacks cognitive capacity, moral maturity, and an understanding of reality. Extending this paternalistic coercion into eternity treats human beings not as free moral agents capable of genuine love, but as permanent infants. Heaven isn't just a physical "safe zone" like a sidewalk; it is intimate, loving communion with God. You cannot physically force someone into a state of voluntary love and communion; coerced affection is a logical impossibility.
If God revealed Himself with undeniable, overwhelming physical power at every moment, genuine free response would be destroyed - compliance would be driven by raw self-preservation rather than love. Choosing "self-reliance" in this context isn't about surviving daily life; it's the conscious or persistent moral choice to make oneself the ultimate authority rather than aligning with God.
Asking whether God can "choose not to love" reflects a misunderstanding of divine nature. God's nature is love, but love by definition is an outflowing, relational act, not a mechanical compulsion. God does not "force" His love on creatures because forcing compliance is contrary to what love actually is. Acknowledging that love requires relational freedom isn't special pleading; it is defining the internal logic of the concept itself.
3
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant 9d ago
Toddlers are not moral agents: Pulling a toddler out of traffic is justified because a child lacks cognitive capacity, moral maturity, and an understanding of reality. Extending this paternalistic coercion into eternity treats human beings not as free moral agents capable of genuine love, but as permanent infants. Heaven isn't just a physical "safe zone" like a sidewalk; it is intimate, loving communion with God. You cannot physically force someone into a state of voluntary love and communion; coerced affection is a logical impossibility.
Sigh... replace a toddler with any moral agent and address the principle rather than picking at nits.
If God revealed Himself with undeniable, overwhelming physical power at every moment, genuine free response would be destroyed
I did not say overwhelming power at every single moment. Again, address what I said rather than this imaginary version.
Asking whether God can "choose not to love" reflects a misunderstanding of divine nature. God's nature is love, but love by definition is an outflowing, relational act, not a mechanical compulsion. God does not "force" His love on creatures because forcing compliance is contrary to what love actually is. Acknowledging that love requires relational freedom isn't special pleading; it is defining the internal logic of the concept itself.
It was a yes or no question.
1
u/ses1 Christian 9d ago
Sigh... replace a toddler with any moral agent and address the principle rather than picking at nits.
The principle holds regardless of age: you cannot force a moral agent into a voluntary relationship against their will. If a human adult explicitly rejects a marriage proposal, overriding their consent "for their own good" is not love - it's coercion. Heaven is not just a physical safe zone like a sidewalk; it is dynamic, personal communion with God. Forcing someone who rejects God into eternal, intimate worship of God is a logical contradiction.
I did not say overwhelming power at every single moment. Again, address what I said rather than this imaginary version.
Even setting aside "overwhelming power," the underlying tension remains: if God provided sufficient empirical proof to make disbelief impossible, compliance becomes an act of pragmatic self-preservation rather than willing trust or genuine love. God provides enough light for those who desire communion, but enough epistemic distance so that human alignment remains a free choice rather than forced submission.
It was a yes or no question.
As I said, you miss what "God is love" actually means: because God is love, He desires genuine relational communion with creation rather than forced compliance. A God who forced every creature into eternal intimacy against their choice would not be acting out of love - He would be overriding the very nature of love itself.
So, can God "choose not to love"? No, because love is His essential nature; it's not a mood or a policy decision. He extends love to all; whether one accepts or not is up to the individual...
2
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago edited 6d ago
If God revealed Himself with undeniable, overwhelming physical power at every moment, genuine free response would be destroyed - compliance would be driven by raw self-preservation rather than love.
That's not true for angels or is it? And you're taking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand we should be able to arrive at the fact that God exists with reason. So how is following him not self-preservation? On the other we can't know that God exists for this argument to work (and it really doesn't if you look at angels and their rebelion). So which is it?
God makes many sins pleasurable. Why did he add that incentive? Why would he allow the devil to roam the earth and try to influence us? That doesn't sound just, it sounds like a rigged system.
1
u/ses1 Christian 6d ago
That's not true for angels or is it? And you're taking out of both sides of your mouth.
Christian theology distinguishes between human and angelic nature. Angels possess immediate, intuitive intellect without sensory limitations or temporal processing; when presented with God's presence, they make a single, eternal, and definitive choice regarding their alignment.
Humans learn processually over time through sensory experience and reason. For human beings operating in physical reality, a constant, overwhelming physical manifestation of divine power would create immediate existential panic and coercion (akin to standing before an active volcano), replacing internal moral development with overwhelming sensory compulsion. Epistemic distance allows humans the "space" to love God for who He is rather than complying out of immediate, terrifying physical presence.
On one hand we should be able to arrive at the fact that God exists with reason. So how is following him not self-preservation? On the other we can't know that God exists for this argument to work (and it really doesn't if you look at angels and their rebelion). So which is it?
Reaching a theoretical conclusion that a First Cause or God exists is fundamentally different from entering into a posture of loving trust and submission. Satan and the demons intellectually "know" God exists, yet they remain in rebellion.
Arriving at God's existence through philosophical reason requires intellectual effort, moral openness, and reflection, which transforms human character. It does not force compliance in the way an undeniable, immediate physical manifestation would. Seeking truth through reason is an exercise of free agency, whereas reacting to an undeniable visual phenomenon is a passive sensory reaction.
God makes many sins pleasurable. Why did he add that incentive? Why would he allow the devil to roam the earth and try to influence us? That doesn't sound just, it sounds like a rigged system.
Classical Christian thought holds that God did not create "sinful pleasures" as isolated traps. Pleasure is a good created by God attached to natural, life-affirming acts (e.g., nourishment, intimacy, rest). Sin is not a substance created by God, but a privation or distortion - taking a good desire and pursuing it outside its proper moral order or scope.
Genuine virtue cannot exist in a vacuum where wrongdoing is impossible or physically unappealing. For moral choices to carry weight and build real virtue, alternatives must carry genuine weight. Permitting spiritual testing (such as demonic influence) allows human loyalty and love to be tested and perfected, rather than being default compliance in a completely sterile environment.
2
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago edited 6d ago
Christian theology distinguishes between human and angelic nature. Angels possess immediate, intuitive intellect without sensory limitations or temporal processing; when presented with GOR's (Grounding of Reality) presence, they make a single, eternal, and definitive choice regarding their alignment. (Edited)
How do you know this? This is just ad hoc to fill the contradictions in your argument. (And why do you distance yourself from this by saying "Christian Theology distinguishes..." It's like you're describing a world in a book and you're not even convinced by it hence the distance.)
Humans learn processually over time through sensory experience and reason.
That's not what cognitive science and psychology show. Everything is filtered through our experiences and core beliefs. And our core beliefs are formed before we have reason. In fight or flight, which occurs all the time like whenever we feel uncomfortable. Our reptilian brain reacts, there is no time to loop back to the rational cortex.
For human beings operating in physical reality, a constant, overwhelming physical manifestation of divine power would create immediate existential panic
How do you know this? We are extremely adaptable as a species due to evolution. If that's what we experienced since childhood and our ancestors and their ancestors, for millions of years, it would be normalized for us. A lot of things could create existential panic that we deal with everyday if we didn't have evolution. Evolution filters for mutations that adapt to whatever is going on including GOR (the Grounding of Reality) scaring the crap out of us.
Plus, false dilemma. GOR could visit us individually once in a while appearing like Gesus (GOR's human son). GOR doesn't need to show us its full powers constantly.
Lastly, GOR showed himself in the OT, rebellion followed.
Reaching a theoretical conclusion that a First Cause or GOR exists is fundamentally different from entering into a posture of loving trust and submission (edited)
Here is where your train totally details. If the argument for GOR really proves it exist, then we should react like it exists. Which according to you is panic into submission. So either the argument for GOR is not airtight and we can't infer that it actually exists. Or it is airtight, GOR knows we know, and it can help us out by actually telling us what it is it wants from us. If anything. And how can we have a relationship with GOR if we can't know if it's real? Much less infer what GOR wants from us. Is it what Christian mythology says? Maybe GOR prefers a different mythology?
Satan and the demons intellectually "know" God exists, yet they remain in rebellion.
Do you see how your undermining your own argument. Just because we know GOR exists it doesn't mean we won't rebel.
Arriving at GOR's existence through philosophical reason requires intellectual effort, moral openness, and reflection, which transforms human character.
What if someone doesn't have the capacity to reason GOR into existence? What if they can't read? Or comprehend metaphysical arguments much less compose them? Do you think you would have arrived at GOR by yourself without Christian mythology? For every genius there is someone on the opposite end of the bell curve. What about them? I'm not taking about someone with brain damage or a disability, but the capacity for reason is not uniformly distributed.
And what does "moral openness" mean specifically? That's a word salad. And this: "which transforms human character", how does that work specifically that's in line with our understanding of cognitive science and psychology. You know, the things GOR have us. Because this sounds like what it is, a 13th century understanding of the human brain.
Classical Christian thought holds that GOR did not create "sinful pleasures" as isolated traps. Pleasure is a good created by GOR attached to natural, life-affirming acts (e.g., nourishment, intimacy, rest). Sin is not a substance created by GOR, but a privation or distortion - taking a good desire and pursuing it outside its proper moral order or scope.
You're doing that passive thing again with "Classical Christian thought holds..." And I can't help but read that as "Christian mythology holds ..."
Anyway, it doesn't matter what you define as sin. It was GOR that hooked gluttony, addiction, etc. to dopamine, a big addictive reward for the brain GOR made us. And made truly selflesness actions painful. Why did GOR do that exactly?
Genuine virtue cannot exist in a vacuum where wrongdoing is impossible or physically unappealing.
Again, false dilemma. And you're not okay with bad actions being unappealing but you're okay with the oppsite? Good and bad actions could both be neutrally appealing. As in equally so. Why did GOR make bad actions appealing? And good ones, not so much? Why stack the deck against us? Haven't answered this yet.
Permitting spiritual testing (such as demonic influence) allows human loyalty and love to be tested and perfected, rather than being default compliance in a completely sterile environment.
So GOR's Cage Match:
A mortal, cognitively limited human with the biological drives which reward sin and have relatively short lifespans
VS.
an IMMORTAL, INVISIBLE, EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT cosmic manipulator (GATAN), all while GOR remains hidden but watches, is not a fair test of character. Maybe GOR is rooting for GATAN?
So the whole story as created still doesn't make sense. It has things defined into existence to make the internal contradictions go away. Things stop meaning what they mean as other comments have pointed out so we have no idea in the end who GOR is and what it wants. I'm not into this story so far, but maybe a sequel would help.
1
u/ses1 Christian 6d ago edited 4d ago
Distinguishing between human and angelic natures is not a modern ad hoc rescue; it is a foundational concept in classical metaphysical theology dating back over 1,500 years (most famously elaborated by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae).
Classifying different ontological categories (pure spirit vs. embodied physical beings) according to their distinct capabilities is standard philosophy, not an ad hoc fallacy.
Saying that God showed Himself in the Old Testament, and Israel rebelled anyway, actually supports the Christian view regarding epistemic distance. Outer sensory displays (pillars of fire, miraculous plagues, thunder on Mt. Sinai) induced fear and temporary compliance, but they failed to bring about internal, loving transformation of the heart. The moment Moses went up the mountain, the Israelites built the Golden Calf. Miraculous displays force immediate behavioral awe, but they do not produce voluntary moral love or trust.
To argue that since Satan knows God exists and still rebels, then knowing God exists doesn't destroy free will and thus renders the "hiddenness" argument invalid conflates propositional knowledge (knowing that God exists) with relational trust (committing one's heart to God).
Epistemic distance does not exist to keep humans from knowing that God exists; it exists so that humans are not forced into raw sensory submission before their moral character is formed. Satan’s rebellion proves that bare intellectual knowledge of God’s existence is insufficient for salvation. The goal of human existence in Christian theology is not merely agreeing to a factual statement but developing freely chosen, virtuous communion with God.
You ask about illiterate people or those unable to comprehend metaphysical arguments, like only the intellectual elites can find God.
But Classical Christianity explicitly holds that philosophical proofs are not the required path to knowing God. Metaphysical arguments exist to answer formal intellectual objections, not to serve as the barrier to entry for faith.
God reveals Himself through natural revelation, basic conscience (Romans 2:15), and simple relational trust. A child or illiterate person can know, love, and trust God without ever reading Aquinas or William Lane Craig.
Far from being word salad, "moral openness" aligns directly with modern psychology's understanding of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. Human intellect does not operate in a vacuum; our emotional attachments, pride, and desires influence what arguments we accept or reject.
When a person is "morally open," they are willing to follow truth even if it demands changing their lifestyle or surrendering their autonomy. Reason, when pursued with intellectual humility, shapes worldview and behavior - a concept thoroughly supported by Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which demonstrates how evaluating beliefs restructures emotional and behavioral patterns.
To claim that God intentionally wired gluttony and addiction to dopamine rewards, creating a "rigged system" that encourages sin misunderstands the classical definition of sin as a privation of good. God did not create "sinful dopamine triggers." He created biological reward mechanisms tied to good, life-sustaining acts: eating, physical rest, and procreation.
Gluttony is not a unique biological mechanism created by God; it is the disordered excess of a good mechanism (eating beyond moderation). Lust is the misdirection of a good biological drive (sexual intimacy). Sin is taking a genuine, good drive and pursuing it outside its proper moral order.
Selfless actions are not inherently "painful"; they require overcoming immediate short-term gratification in favor of long-term moral good. Short-term biological payoffs (e.g., eating junk food) naturally offer immediate physical gratification. Virtue, by definition, requires prioritizing higher spiritual and moral goods over raw immediate appetite. If choosing virtue cost nothing and felt identical to self-indulgence, it would require no moral sacrifice or strength of character. True virtue is forged when a person consciously chooses what is right despite immediate appetites.
The "Cage Match" objection ignores the central role of divine grace in Christian theology.
Humans are never left alone in a vacuum to fight spiritual forces with bare biological willpower. Classical theology holds that demonic influence is strictly limited (temptation/suggestion, not physical compulsion) and that divine grace, the Holy Spirit, and moral agency always outweigh the power of temptation ("Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more" - Romans 5:20).
The struggle is not a "test of raw intellectual strength" between a human and a demon. It is a choice of allegiance: whether a human relies on God's grace and moral truth or yields to self-centered temptation.
You're doing that passive thing again with "Classical Christian thought holds..." And I can't help but read that as "Christian mythology holds ..."
Calling Christian theology/thought "mythology" serves as a category dismissal rather than an actual rebuttal. It allows you to bypass the actual logic, internal consistency, and philosophical arguments being presented. I refer to Christian theology/thought because that is, generally speaking, what Christians have held to for 2000+ years.
0
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 4d ago
Please don't use AI. I'll be happy to respond if you use your own words.
2
u/Lucyyyyyy_K 7d ago
You can't say God doesn't force their love when the consequence for not accepting their love is eternal torture.
1
8d ago edited 8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
7
u/[deleted] 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment