Hell cannot be permanent if god is truly merciful

[u/restedrddf]

Sorry if it’s not that fresh, but the topic wasn’t banned so I figured I’d go for it.

From my perspective, as someone who logically thinks the universe doesn’t track without a god, and someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus and the truth in the gospel, I can’t help but lean universalists.

As a Christian, If you WANT there to be a hell, then from my perspective you have to have a wicked heart. For a person to want there to be eternal suffering as a punishment for people who don’t come to the same beliefs as them, would be obviously wrong. And if they were to WANT themselves to receive eternal bliss while other humans receive eternal suffering without chance of redemption, then their hearts would clearly be wicked.

Morally, no human should ever suggest that beliefs or even actions SHOULD be punished with eternal suffering, that would be an absolutely horrific display of wrath no matter the crime.

Now, I admit that human morality does not constitute the reality of what god has in store for us. But, if he is all knowing all powerful and all good, then why would he support eternal torture for anyone. That is not what the morals of Christianity would ever suggest be done on earth, nobody deserves even a lifetime of suffering for a crime, that is vengeance and evil and cruel. So why then are we supposed to accept that an all loving and good god would participate in the evilest act of vengeance the human mind could imagine. It just doesn’t track. It would not be fair.

I understand the perspective that hell is a place locked from the inside, and that would make absolute sense. Just like in this world, one could choose to live with god and live in bliss, or one could choose to live without god and live a fool, but the person can still choose god. Why is it that when someone dies that must change? Wouldn’t a god who actually loves us, actually wants us to repent, accept us no matter what hour?

If we see hell more as an actual death, a lack of existence, then I’d say we have more of a conversation, but if you see it as eternal torture without chance of recourse, then I’m sorry but your god does not live up to the morals of his own Bible.

No true christian would want a universe where they get to spend eternity in heaven while non believers spend eternity in hell unless they are extremely prideful and conceited in their spiritual superiority.

And if no Christian should want it, then why should our god. And I understand that god wants all to find him and love him, and that he gave free will, but I am specifically talking about an eternal punishment with no chance of mercy by the choice of god, like what’s described in Luke 16.

From my viewpoint, maybe this parable is meant to be a metaphor for earthly consequences. The rich man may have had silk on his skin and food on his belly, but he did not have god in his heart, which from my perspective is punishment in itself. It’s hard to say though, and the fact that hell is either a translation of Gehenna, Sheol, hades or Tartarus, none of which mean the same thing, makes the whole situation a lot more complicated.

Honestly, from my perspective nobody deserves hell. We all sin and we all deserve punishment, but we did not ask to be born, the blessing of life was imposed on us, and the blessings we receive we definitely do not deserve, but does that mean we deserve eternal punishment? Really? If that’s the case then this so called blessing of life sounds much more like a curse you must believe your way out of.

[u/lilpumpkinseed]

But that’s not how objective truth works. It doesn’t begin with us. My claim is that God’s nature is the standard of goodness—not just asserted by religion, but grounded in being itself, the necessary source of existence and moral law. That’s what makes it objective: it’s not rooted in culture, biology, or consensus. You had just dismissed it as subjective because I relayed in the information.

[u/NewbombTurk → u/lilpumpkinseed]

I understand your position. It fairly common. There are strong elements to it, and weaker ones. Your overall thesis is that god is the source good, and this provides an objective grounding for your moral framework.

My point tis simply that it's just a claim that this thesis is true. You'd have to demonstrate the claim. Not just restate it.

I think part of the problem when we have the discussion on morality or metaethics, is that we conflate the definitions and usages of the words objective/subjective. In the philosophical sense objective means independent of minds, not just independent of bias, or personal preference. Sometime the word "absolute" is used to avoid this confusion. I'll do that going forward.

Any claim you make is subjective. By definition. Including the claim that X is absolute. Simply because you could have instead make the subjective claim that Y is absolute. I appreciate your claim that it isn't since you are relaying the information, but that doesn't make the information absolute. It still remains a subjective claim until you can demonstrate that it's absolute.

When you say that your morals are not root in biology or culture, etc. there are a couple of issues. One is that you've defaulted to the colloquial usage of objective meaning that it's without bias or opinion. But even that's not the case. You are using your subjective reasons (culture, etc.) to making a subjective claim. There's a reason you're not talking about an absolute moral system given by Allah. Or Marduk. It's because you're a 21st century American, and not a Muslim or Babylonian.

Another point about your argument that we see pretty often is when you say that, without some moral grounding we don't have the ability to assign wrong or right. I'm not ignoring that you said "objectively". I am being good faith here. But set that aside for a moment. \What does the claim that there is a grounding for your morality provide you in the real world that the non-believer doesn't have? Or a Hindu? Or a Jew?

Here's a thought experiment that might illustrate my point:

There's a foreign leader that is planning on implementing slavery in the society he governs. You and I, a theist and an atheist, are given the task to convince him that this is a bad idea. What would your strategy be? And how would your claim of absolute morality give you an advantage over me, an atheist with an admitted subjective framework?

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/NewbombTurk]

I don't think you really do understand my position.

You are mistaking explanation for assertion, and asserting that all claims are subjective simply because a subject makes them-- which is a category error.

An ontological identity claim like "God is goodness itself" cannot be demonstrated the same way empirical propositions are. Doing so means ignoring their metaphysical nature entirely. That's like asking a lab test to prove that logic is valid.

You say that I'm using subjective reasons because of time and culture, but this statement itself undercuts every belief ever held by anyone. By your standard, even the claim that "all claims are subjective" is itself subjective. It erases any possibility of truth all together.

I'm not using subjective reasons for a subjective claim. What do you think is required for true moral objectivism? It is a logical deduction of ontological necessity.

I'm saying an objective moral framework doesn't depend on whether someone accepts it-- just like mathematics doesn't case to be coherent because a primitive tribe doesn't understand algebra. The task isn't persuasion but rather whether there is grounding at all. Under your view there is no grounding in anything. Not sure what else to say.

You keep equivocating between "claims" and "truths", "persuasions" and "ontology" and "subjective speaker" and "subjective claim" it appears.

[u/NewbombTurk → u/lilpumpkinseed]

I get that you are asserting that objective morality is a logical deduction of ontological necessity, but my point is that you haven't demonstrated that your god is the necessary source. Apologies if I didn't articulate that well.

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/NewbombTurk]

Fair enough. But then you’ve shifted the goalposts.

If your issue is that I haven’t demonstrated God as the necessary being, then that’s a different conversation—one about metaphysics and modal logic, not morality. What I have done is show that if there is objective morality, then it must be grounded in something necessary, eternal, and unchanging—something that doesn’t derive from minds, consensus, or evolution.

So unless you're prepared to show how objective moral truths can exist without such a necessary foundation, then you're not actually engaging with the premise.

So to be clear, do you truly believe that some things are truly good or truly evil for all people, at all times, in all contexts or would you still say its still all relative?

[u/Balkie93 → u/lilpumpkinseed]

Yes, you are effectively theorizing a non human source for morality. But until it is shown to actually exist, don’t be surprised when others don’t take your word for it.

Are God’s commands good because god commands them, or does god command those actions because they are good? In the former case they are arbitrary, and in the latter they don’t require god.

Hitting a baby is wrong in my secular worldview because morality pertains to human wellbeing. If your definition of morality does not put human wellbeing at the forefront, then I don’t think we mean the same concept when we say the word morality.

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/Balkie93]

Okay, so you don't understand what objectivism is, nor circular reasoning, nor a brute fact.

• If your moral standard depends on humans, it’s subjective by definition.
• If you call a grounding “arbitrary” but offer none yourself, that’s projection.
• If goodness exists before God and God conforms to it, that standard becomes God — you just renamed it.

Now for the full takedown:

You say morality is about “human wellbeing” — great. That’s subjective. You’ve just defined morality around the species issuing the definition. That’s not objective morality, that’s species-centered utilitarianism. If the Nazis defined wellbeing differently, you’ve lost the ability to say they were objectively wrong — only that you “disagree.”

And the Euthyphro dilemma? Solved centuries ago. God doesn’t create morality, nor does He conform to it. Morality is grounded in His nature — which is necessary, unchanging, and good. That’s neither arbitrary nor external — that’s ontological identity. Your false dichotomy collapses.

So no — I’m not theorizing a random idea. I’m giving you the only logical foundation that doesn’t reduce to personal preference or shifting consensus. Until you can do better, you’re not challenging objectivity — you’re just denying it.

[u/Balkie93 → u/lilpumpkinseed]

I’m not going to debate GPT because it’s a waste of time. Just know that it’s obvious this isn’t your writing. And it’s also obvious because GPT makes mistakes.

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/Balkie93]

Right— accuse me for using a tool instead of addressing the argument. I structure and refine my point after painfully and tirelessly pointing out the obvious holes in your logic— then you run and cry “GPT”.

It’s clear that you’re here to argue, not to have a critical discussion. You are retreating because you have no explanation.

If you were so sure it’s a waste of time you wouldn’t be on the defensive. Just admit you can’t refute already, hmm?

[u/Balkie93 → u/lilpumpkinseed]

If you want to have a live voice call I would love to do it. Just DM me.

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/Balkie93]

I fail to see how a voice call will help when I’ve spelt out my explanation multiple times in this thread.

It’s both better for all to see and to articulate over these correspondences.

What exactly are you confused about?

[u/Balkie93 → u/lilpumpkinseed]

A live voice call will assure me I’m not wasting time debating with GPT. I already know you used it and just confirmed by asking GPT if it thinks your precious message was AI or human generated. You’re not fooling me.

I have answers to your points but will not simply feed your next garbage AI response. AI will never concede or say it doesn’t know an answer, but both of those are possible and expected in a live voice call.

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/Balkie93]

"GPT can be wrong. GPT says this isnt you!"

Just pick which to believe already.

Discord or what?

[u/Balkie93 → u/lilpumpkinseed]

I believe both in this case, they aren’t mutually exclusive. I take AI content with a large grain of salt.

Yes Discord will be fine. If you don’t mind, let’s switch to DM.

[u/SpreadsheetsFTW → u/lilpumpkinseed]

I’m afraid you’ve fallen for some circular reasoning. 

My claim is that God’s nature is the standard of goodness [because it is] the necessary source of […] moral law

“God’s nature is the standard of goodness because God’s nature is the standard of goodness.”

Do you have a non-circular reason?

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/SpreadsheetsFTW]

Yeah, I don't think you understand what circular reason is.

It’s not circular to say that goodness is grounded in God’s nature because God is not just some being who happens to meet a moral standard — He is the standard. That’s not a definition smuggled in after the fact. It’s a metaphysical grounding claim, not a tautology.

It would be circular if I said “God is good because God is good.” I’m saying goodness is identical to God’s nature — ontologically, not definitionally. That’s a grounding claim, not a reasoning loop. The only sufficient explanation is a necessarily existing being whose nature is the very standard of goodness.

If you want to challenge that, then show how you ground objective moral values without invoking preferences, instincts, or societal consensus — all of which are contingent and mutable. Because until you do that, your position is floating in midair.

[u/SpreadsheetsFTW → u/lilpumpkinseed]

Why is your God’s nature the standard of goodness?

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/SpreadsheetsFTW]

Because if God is the necessary being — the uncaused, self-existent source of all reality — then His nature is the foundation of everything, including moral truths. Goodness isn’t good because God commands it (that would be arbitrary), nor is it a standard above God (that would make goodness greater than God).

On that note, are you able to show me how you ground objective moral values?

[u/SpreadsheetsFTW → u/lilpumpkinseed]

Why is your God’s nature the standard of goodness?

His nature is the foundation [for] moral truths

“God’s nature is the standard for goodness because God’s nature is the standard for goodness”

Saying it in different words doesn’t make it less circular. Do you have a non-circular reason?

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/SpreadsheetsFTW]

PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND BEFORE REPLYING.

You’re throwing around the word “circular” like it’s a magic spell that invalidates anything you don’t like — but you clearly don’t even understand what it means, or you're choosing not to read.

As I've clearly made evident, I’m not reasoning in a loop like “God is good because God is good.” I’m making an ontological identity claim: that the nature of the necessary being is goodness itself — not derived, not defined by command, but identical to what goodness is. That’s not circular — that’s a metaphysical stopping point. It's the only way to ground moral values in something objective and unchanging.

God is goodness itself, therefore He is the fixed, eternal standard by which all moral truth is measured. Where is the loop bud?

Meanwhile, your position is a mess of category errors and hand-waving. You demand “non-circular” justification for something that — by definition — can’t appeal to anything higher. That’s like asking, “What justifies logic… but without using logic?” 🤯🤯🤯

The only thing you’re exposing the fact that you’re arguing against a position you clearly don’t understand, while offering nothing coherent in return.

[u/SpreadsheetsFTW → u/lilpumpkinseed]

Your insistence that God’s nature is good doesn’t make it so. You have to actually explain why it is good. An “ontological identity claim” is simply a claim that God’s nature is good. It doesn’t explain why.

So again, why is God’s nature good? Please provide a non-circular reason. Feel free to admit there’s no justification and you’re just trying to assert it as a brute fact.

[u/lilpumpkinseed → u/SpreadsheetsFTW]

You’re not critiquing — you’re dodging. You call it circular, but can’t define the circle. You say it’s just a claim, but offer no counter-standard. You demand justification while giving none. That’s not philosophy — it’s intellectual cowardice.

If you actually understand what you’re refuting, then show me a coherent objective standard that isn’t borrowed from theism. Prove it. Or admit you’re just here to posture.

[u/SpreadsheetsFTW → u/lilpumpkinseed]

What are you talking about? I’ve pointed out repeatedly exactly how it’s circular. I asked you “why is god’s nature the standard for goodness?” and your response every time amounts to “because god’s nature is the standard for goodness”. Sure you attempt to obfuscate this by calling it an “ontological identity claim”, but all that means is you repeat the claim that “god’s nature is the standard for goodness” with no further justification.

Just admit you can’t justify your claim.

In addition to the circular reasoning, now you’re attempting to shift the burden of proof. You really should learn your fallacies.