2. Hell is the eternal torment by damnation from God. — robbiefrost

We entered Hell the moment we were exiled from the Garden of Eden. This was our separation from God and to Whom we struggle to return.

God is the origin of Life. As life evolved it has moved further and further away from God. Your consciousness is your connection to God. To join God you must release your consciousness which is held captive by your body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu?fbclid=IwAR3itT5SD3DNlyY8rYX1F-eGNx7DGeRMy1pgOfEB1DJQyKib8wtP1gVXfvw

Sokushinbutsu (即身仏) are a kind of Buddhist mummy. The term refers to the practice of Buddhist monks observing asceticism to the point of death and entering mummification while alive.[1] They are seen in a number of Buddhist countries, but the Japanese term "sokushinbutsu" is generally used.

It is believed that many hundreds of monks tried, but only 24 such mummifications have been discovered to date. There is a common suggestion that Shingon school founder Kukai brought this practice from Tang China as part of secret tantric practices he learned, and that were later lost in China.[2]

'God' is dubious:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6817/an-estimate-for-no-god/p1

If God is omni-benevolent, He would not allow any of his children to be damned to eternal torment. — robbiefrost

I think there's a misunderstanding about this (and I'm not writing as a Christian). But the Christian view is that mankind has been offered salvation by virtue of belief in Jesus Christ. If they choose not to take it, then they suffer the consequences because they've refused the way out of 'hell'. An analogy would be that there's a thirsty traveller in the desert who's offered water, but he refuses it and dies of thirst. Is the person who offered to water 'selfish' and 'cruel' because the traveller refused? So God does not 'damn' anyone - people damn themselves. And that is perfectly compatible with Christian doctrine (indeed C S Lewis said 'the doors of hell lock from the inside'.)

The implicit model of 'God' that you have presented is God as a kind of uber-CEO or manager, who makes decisions and 'sends' people to 'hell'. But I think that's a very anthropomorphic notion, albeit one that seems to make sense in our cultural context.

Speaking of Buddhism, Buddhism too has hells - as is typical, a large number of them, all dreadfully ghastly, some hot, some cold, and so on. They're described in tortuous detail in medieval Buddhist literature. But nobody sends anyone to hell in Buddhism, as is there is no supreme being in the Christian sense; beings are born into realms solely according to their deeds. Is that 'cruel'?

Hey!

I agree on the fact that the problem of Hell is quite unsettling to me too when thinking of God as an omni-benevolent being. However, I think there are a few viewpoints that might be able to ease your stress about His sentencing people to hell/purgatory/something of the sort.

God’s descriptions as a loving and nurturing being remind me of that of a mother’s, which brought me to an idea.

Thinking back on your childhood, I’m sure there are countless examples of a mother, father or elder figure in your life punishing you for doing something wrong: i.e. stealing a friends toy, harming a sibling, etc. The punishments they enforced were (at the time) by no means fun or wanted. But, I’d argue they were necessary or at least beneficial in the grand-scheme of things. I would also argue that SOME punishment (although often times physically and or mentally painful) CAN be made out of love.

Such as your mom fiercely scolding you for pushing your sister, does this mean that she has stopped loving you in the moment of her scolding? Probably not, but the punishment may trick us into believing so.

Although the comparison may seem dis-analogous between God’s omni-benevolence and that of a Mother’s love and eternal damnation to Hell to that of a Mother’s scolding, but I believe the connection helps nonetheless.

Perhaps the above connection is more of a supporting claim for the idea of purgatory rather than the idea of eternal damnation to hell. I believe the above scenario of a Mother’s punishment couldn’t be soundly applied towards an argument justifying Hell because of the potential to improve after the Mother’s punishment. If you could argue that a Mother could punish a child for eternity out of love, then you might have an argument for Hell. But I can’t seem to offer that to ya…

To sum up my thoughts very briefly

1. If you can punish out of love, then an omni-benevolent being can punish.
2. You can punish out of love, so an omni-benevolent being can punish.
3. God is an omni-benevolent being, so God can punish

As a Christian, the question of whether or not hell exists is one I ponder often. — robbiefrost

I take it you are interested in whether it is a reality, as opposed to an essential element of a Christian worldview?

I also take it that the idea of hell is the idea of some 'other' place that bodily death potentially takes you to. And I take it as well that essential to the idea of hell is that it is some place that is substantially worse to live in than here.

Given that understanding of the concept, I would say that we have good - though by no means decisive - reason to think that such a place exists.

My case for hell appeals to this argument:

1. If an event is harmful to a person, that person must exist at the time of the event.
2. Death is an event that is harmful to the one who dies.
3. Therefore, the person who dies exists at the time of the event of their death

That argument is valid and premise 1 seems self-evidently true to the reason of many. Existence is a prerequisite for harm. And likewise for premise 2. The argument therefore appears to be sound. Certainly the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim otherwise.

The argument establishes two things. First that we survive our deaths, and second that upon death our situation becomes considerably worse than it was before it. After all, if - upon death - we go to somewhere substantially better than here, then death would not be a harm, but a benefit.

The apparent harmfulness of death, combined with the fact that harm requires existence, implies that what awaits us after death is life in a place worse than here - hell, in other words.

As for why such a place exists if God exists - well first, we can have good evidence that something is the case, without knowing why it is the case. If, for example, I come home one day and discover an elephant in my living room, then I have excellent evidence that there is an elephant in my living room even though I haven't the faintest idea how it got there. Even if it seems utterly inexplicable how it could have got there - all the doors to my living room are smaller than the elephant - I can still have excellent evidence that there is an elephant in my living room.

So, we might have excellent evidence that hell exists, and excellent evidence that God exists, consistent with being completely at a loss to explain 'why' God created hell.

Second, it is quite easy to come up with possible explanations. For example, a morally good being might harm others if those others deserve to come to harm. Wrongdoers, if they have done wrong of their own free will, typically deserve to come to harm. So, hell may be just punishment for wrongdoers - and in that way its existence could be consistent with the existence of a good God.

1. If an event is harmful to a person, that person must exist at the time of the event.
2. Death is an event that is harmful to the one who dies.
3. Therefore, the person who dies exists at the time of the event of their death — Bartricks

The argument establishes two things. First that we survive our deaths, — Bartricks

I don’t see this. Where is it that we survive our deaths?

I don’t see this. Where is it that we survive our deaths? — Brett

You have to exist at the time of your death in order to be harmed by it. If we take death to mark the end of bodily existence - or 'this' bodily existence - then you must exist at the time your bodily existence ends. You have therefore survived the demise of your body.

then you must exist at the time your bodily existence ends. — Bartricks

Yes, but surely only up to that point, like a light going off.

You can't exist at time t, and not exist at time t.

So, if your bodily death occurs at time t, then either you exist at time t, or you do not.

If you do not, then - if premise 1 is true - your death did not harm you.

But our deaths will be harms to us. Thus we must exist at time t. At time t our bodily existence ceased, but 'our' existence did not. Hence why death is something that happens to us (and harms us).

Okay, I’m going to think about this.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Does Hell exist? Yes. It is called 'life'.

Do you have to do a greater act than the negative of the sin in order to purge it? Do you get your life merits back if you do? Can a punishment take the place of a courageous act of repentence? Is it just ridiculous that people end up in hell or is it understandable?

If you believe in Hell you are already in it.

1. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then all his children would be well behaved children and there would be no need for Hell - he would simply ensure his children do not commit sin (note that free will is not compromised any more by this approach than it is by living under the threat of eternal damnation)

2. But from the evidence around us (of mis-behaving children) we have to assume that God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

3. In order to create a mechanism such as Hell, omnipotence is likely required.

4. So that means the only chance that Hell exists is if we have an omnipotent but not omnibenevolent God

5. There are good arguments to say God must be benevolent even if he is not omnibenevolent

6. But if he is benevolent and omnipotent, then argument [1] surely still applies - some other mechanism rather than eternal damnation could be employed to ensure the greater good - like making all his children non-sinners

7. So I think it can be concluded that Hell does not exist

What is your philosophical argument for an immortal soul?

I'm not sure I have any. Do you?

As far as extended longevity goes, it seems to me the only possibility is some form of circular, eternal, time, which is not as far fetched as it sounds (see Closed Timeline Curves from General Relativity). But that would be a form of bodily immortality; it says nothing about the existence or immortality of the soul.

If we were living in a simulation (which I don't believe), we would be pure information and that information I suppose could be regarded as a sort of soul. It would be transferable on death to another simulation. So it's sort of like a transmigration of the soul.

↪ovdtogt I'm not sure I have any. Do you? — Devans99

No I don't. Doesn't the question about Heaven and Hell then become mute?

I do believe the moment we became self-aware, the fear of 'losing' oneself became a frightening concept and we have been striving for immortality ever since. Also that this fear is possibly one of the greatest driving forces behind civilization.

Indeed, but to answer the OP question about the existence of Hell, one has to first make the assumption that the soul exists - I should have probably stated that in my initial response - sorry.

I have no problem with that assumption. Ventilating assumptions is what we do here. :wink:

Of you believe in prophecy you have two roads to choose: molinism or compatabilism

For Christians God knew the damned would go to hell in the end and created them anyway

But nobody sends anyone to hell in Buddhism, — Wayfarer

Buddhism believes you create your own hell.

There are good arguments to say God must be benevolent — Devans99

What are these arguments?