Atheists appear to have leveled two different ‘arguments from evil’ against the existence of God.
According to the evidential argument from evil, one would not suspect a world designed by a significantly omnipotent, omniscient, morally-perfect being to contain suffering and pain of the magnitude experienced by humankind. Hence, though the pain (i.e., evil) humanity sees does not logically suggest the non-existence of an Omni-perfect God, it counts as evidence against the existence of God.
Under the logical argument from evil, it is not logically permissible for an Omni-perfect deity to coincide with evil. Given the evident existence of evil, it is impossible for there to be an Omni-perfect God. Moreover, since religious traditions frequently declare the presence of both God and evil, they are mentally incoherent.
The problem with the concept of hell can be logically stated as:
- (1) An All-perfect God could not doom anyone to hell without a morally-sufficient reason to do so.
- (2) It is not at all possible for an Omni-perfect God to have a morally sufficient reason to condemn anyone.
- (3) Thus, it is not possible for God to curse anyone to hell.
The argument infers that if there is an Omni-perfect God—one that has the perfection of Goodness—then no one is damned. Therefore traditional monotheism, which insists on both condemnation and God’s Omni-perfection, are inconsistent and must be revised. Scholars must forfeit either the doctrine of eternal damnation or the traditional perception of God as All-perfect.
Considering the above argument, those who choose to retain their belief in an Omni-perfect God have two choices:
[1] embrace necessary universalism, or [2] challenge the soundness of the argument. The reasoning is valid, so those who wish to reject the argument must deny one of its premises.
So, is Hell compatible with an Omni-perfect God? Why or why not and how?
Comments
Post a Comment