I thought Hell was usually seen as a complete privation of God. In this sense, God transcends existence, he grounds it but is not "in" it.

Then He sustains in token presence only and doesn’t care about the people in hell.

Another argument, hell assumes that time only matters from a human perspective, not a divine one.
I was a good kid I went to church and was baptized. Then I read the Tao te Ching and talked to a Zen master and was fooled by his be nice people mumbo jumbo and now I die and am damned. Serves me right!
Okay the 35 year old me deserves hell, okay. But what about the 8 year old me? Does that me not exist anymore? But God is eternal. Maybe the 8 year old me doesn’t go to hell, because I was alive when I was 8. Well what about the parts of life that suck and I how I got stuffed into lockers and all that? I prayed to God to help. Not only did he not relieve my suffering (which is fine if I go to heaven) but he tells the 8 year old me “don’t worry in another 30 years you’ll be stuffed into boiling vats by demons, this is nothing.”

I used pretty sarcastic language for effect to point out the logical absurdity and cruelty of the position on hell.
Yet. I acknowledge that you never said that you believe in hell. Just clarifying the typical understanding of hell.
Second, I don’t wish to imply anyone who believes in hell is a bad or foolish person. I attack the argument and not the person. Actually, if someone believed in hell and thought I, as a non-Christian, was going there would be morally obligated to warn me as a compassionate act.

Not that this forum lives up to being free of personal attacks, but I believe as philosophers we should. I mean no offense to anyone.

Therefore, hell exists to make God suffer infinitely and forever.
This cannot be, so eternal hell doesn’t exist. — MysticMonist

Why cannot it be so? On the propositions that God is infinite in all ways, including good, then by what criteria does he know he's infinitely good unless there is bad, in his case infinite badness, which, as you have very nicely argued, he would suffer infinitely.

On a brighter note, in as much as God is omni-present (yes?) he must be everywhere, and thus wherever he is, there is no room for me! Therefore I'm not going to hell.

Hmm... yes. If the mortal world ends and everyone is in heaven, do they eventually forget about evil and without evil there is no good? It’s a clever argument.
But my screen name is MysticMONIST. You propose an argument that assumes a dualistic view of no good without evil. I say as a monist there is only good and evil doesn’t exist itself. It’s only a fleeting No to God’s eternal and all-powerful Yes. I think resolving the monist and dualist debate is beyond my ability. For me, Monism is a given, it’s a self evident first principle. But I could be wrong.

I’ve have thought about how it may be kind of silly how if we live for only 100 years but are immortal after that, we will able sitting around telling stories from our glory days like my father in law, about high school track, forever! “St. Alban, yeah, I know you were martyred and are patron saints of refugees. You’ve told the story 10 billion times!”

I say as a monist there is only good and evil doesn’t exist itself. It’s only a fleeting No to God’s eternal and all-powerful Yes — MysticMonist

Is the fleeting No in 'a fleeting No to God’s eternal and all-powerful Yes' Good then?

I say as a monist there is only good and evil doesn’t exist itself — MysticMonist

If evil or bad doesn't exist how would you distinguish good?

What's Ingrid's counterpart?

Sorry
What is goods counterpart?

I sense a trap and getting out of my league here. This is what I get for just studying monists (Plato, Plotinus, Spinoza, Maimonides)... it always assumed.

“Is the fleeting No in 'a fleeting No to God’s eternal and all-powerful Yes' Good then?”

Umm... the no is an action, right? The theif is evil only in the act of stealing, not in being a living being. God sustains the thief’s material body as well as his soul with His loving kindness, so it’s not evil.

Monism, seems self evident to me, in meditation and prayer. You can take my word for it, right? Just kidding.

On the propositions that God is infinite in all ways, including good, then by what criteria does he know he's infinitely good unless there is bad, — tim wood

On the proposition that "bad" is merely the privation of good, then without bad there would be nothing but good; infinite goodness.

Similarly, if ignorance is the privation of knowledge then without ignorance there would be nothing but knowledge; infinite knowledge. it is on account of his infinte knowledge that God knows his infinite goodness.
Quod erat demonstrandum.

I sense a trap and getting out of my league here. This is what I get for just studying monists — MysticMonist

No its not a trap and if it was out of your league I wouldn't bother discussing it with you. Ist got nothing to do with your choice of study it's got to do with what you are saying.

Umm... the no is an action, right? The theif is evil only in the act of stealing, not in being a living being. God sustains the thief’s material body as well as his soul with His loving kindness, so it’s not evil. — MysticMonist

So is their evil or not? And if not, for what reason would one be condemned?

The theif is evil only in the act of stealing, not in being a living being — MysticMonist

Is one actions not to be encompassed in their 'being'?

— MysticMonist

If all being are good. And there is no evil. As I asked before when talking about a 'being' what would the 'good' have as its counterpart.
How do u define good without a counterpart.

If hell exists as a place — MysticMonist

This is the faulty premise.

If there is eternal suffering in hell, then there is no eternal bliss in heaven.

I came up with what I think is a million dollar argument against hell. Feel free to burst my bubble, rain on my parade or pee in my lemonade if you can — MysticMonist

I think everything you've written boils down to "How can there be hell if there is a merciful God." The rest is a bunch of word play. I think it's a better argument without the trappings.

How do u define good without a counterpart. — Another

As a monist I don’t need a counterpart to define anything. It just is. In fact, to be a monist I believe a pluralities and dualities have a ultimate, singular first cause.
Okay there isn’t a God and an anti-God coexisting in eternity, there is just God. Good comes from God, that is what gives it meaning. It doesn’t need an an opposite force. If reality was entirely subjective than perhaps good would mean not evil and evil would mean not good. Yet at least one of these concepts would have to have some intrinsic value or definition for either to be meaningful.
Let’s take American politics, it’s very close to becoming meaningless this way. Let’s suppose the democrats change their platform to be completely against any Republican legislation, they automatically vote no to every republican bill but offer none of their own. They only offer bills that condemn Republic bills. “House Bill 789 condemns the proposed right to Work bill 772.”
Then the Republicans retaliate and stop proposing any bills of their own. “802 condemns 789 which condemns 772” pretty soon the two parties mean nothing. Is that where that idea of good and evil ends up?

Is one actions not to be encompassed in their 'being'? — Another

No. Actions aren’t metaphysical, they happen outside of a individual. Are you your running? Even if you are then it is only while the action occurs. So maybe a theif is evil when they are stealing as a temporary denial of their intended purpose (Love God, love others). But even when he is stealing, he is still existing and existing is a good. Evil doesn’t exist on good because it depends on it for the source of its existence, but it’s not the other way round.

OK this seem in productive u still haven't defined good then! And in an attempt u have repeatedly mentioned evil which you said did not exist, you are deflecting which make me think you can offer no fruitful discussion and are unwilling to suitably assess my questions for what they are. If you are unwilling to ponder these ideas why would you engage in the conversation in the first place. Would your next reason for your beliefs include 'faith'?

No. Actions aren’t metaphysical, they happen outside of a individual — MysticMonist

What are you saying. I am sperate from my actions, so who's to say my actions are mine, or just because I completed those actions it doesn't mean it was my decision to do so.
So what we do has nothing to do with who we are?

Let's break it down and make it simple.

1 question

What is good?

Let's break it down and make it simple. — Another

I agree. Good way to go.
Good comes from and is defined by God. So doing good actions is following God’s will, doing evil actions is acting contrary to God’s will.

you said "This cannot be, so eternal hell doesn’t exist."

Same argument exists on a number of issues that conclude that god does not exist in the first place and for the very same reason.
Omnipotence is incompatible with reason.

When speaking to someone who thinks you're idea off god if extremely fallible, You think using god as reason rational.
If you are content with being close minded about your ideals and are unwilling to question your beliefs you will find philosophy a difficult exercise.
Questioning your beliefs is not to mean that you set out to prove them wrong but to better understand them, If the answers support your beliefs it will help solidify them if they don't support your beliefs this would be reason for more investigation or a change in your beliefs.
To avoid this would be foolish.
When unwilling to engage in these discussions with yourself what possible good would come from discussing them with others.

Please note the absence of question marks.
This highlights the rhetorical stance these question have.

Philosophy isn’t some perfect place where everyone is completely open minded. We are discussing what for me is a first principle. “God exists and is the source of all goodness.” I can’t define that down any further, it’s a given.
I completely acknowledge it’s not your first principle. I posted a while ago about my reason form my existential choice to believe in God. But it’s not a deductive fact for me, it’s a choice. You (if you are an atheist or a dualist) make a different choice. But it’s not an irrational choice, I’ve made mine for what I think are good reasons. I think going into why I choose to believe in God is off topic and is sort of a given for even discussing hell.



Perhaps.. I think is outside the scope of this argument. Obviously if God doesn’t exist there isn’t hell either.

If you both want to discuss the existence of God we could in a new thread. There are always tons of those though and I’ve akready made a defense of it before.

Perhaps.. I think is outside the scope of this argument. Obviously if God doesn’t exist there isn’t hell either.

If you both want to discuss the existence of God we could in a new thread. There are always tons of those though and I’ve akready made a defense of it before. — MysticMonist

I have to tell you that you are arguing against the existence of god whether you like it or not. You seem to want to insist that god is an omnipresent thing. Since the concept is inherently incoherent, as you so ably point out, you have taken god out of the game with hell.

You’re lucky!! Though I suspect really you probably don’t care :) Actually in this thread I did posit a brief defense of God and Monism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2266/my-own-personal-religion-depression-has-enlightened-me-to#Item_2

“God exists and is the source of all goodness.” I can’t define that down any further, it’s a given. — MysticMonist

It's not a given!
You started this thread by highlighting a contradiction within the realm of a world where "god" exists.
Evil is non existent you said but you can't explain why without using evil within your reasoning.
Good doesn't need a counterpart you said. Then what would it be that is opposing god "goodness".
If there is nothing opposing it the god would just be , not as good or bad. Just is. This would mean there is no good and no bad on this premise what would you form morals or ethics on?

I think going into why I choose to believe in God is off topic and is sort of a given for even discussing hell. — MysticMonist

Off topic and sort of a given? It's your belief and the contradictions within your belief that started this thread.

You say I'm lucky? And u suspect I probably don't really care.
If I didn't care I wouldn't respond.
Is this an example of you superior skill of deduction or are you simply superior because you care more than me.