No. Justice by definition entails commensurate treatment. Otherwise justice cannot exist. For example, either stealing a stick of bubble gum is exactly as evil as committing mass murder, or it is not. But on no credible idea of justice can they be equal. So anyone who treats them as equal is unjust. Treating both with an infinite punishment treats them as equal and is therefore unjust. Since this analysis will show that there is always some greater evil than any specific evil, the only evil that is commensurate with an infinite punishment is an infinite evil. Humans, as finite beings, can never commit an infinite evil.
Moreover, justice itself has no value if it causes more harm than good. If justice caused more harm than good, then justice itself would be evil. Infinite punishment causes infinitely more harm than good, since the amount of suffering that results is always greater (in fact, infinitely greater) than the suffering caused by the original crime. Therefore, infinite punishment can never be a component of any system of justice that was not itself evil.
Finally, by definition, any moral being would prefer and maintain a system of justice that does more good than another system of justice. A system of justice that reforms the punished and then allows them to repurchase their freedom and happiness by achieving restitution to (and forgiveness from) all those they wronged, would produce infinitely more good than a system of justice in which punishments were infinite. Therefore, no moral being would allow any system infinite punishment--if they can create and maintain a better one, as any god could.
Comments
There are two solutions to this question. Either Hell doesn't exist, at least not in the sense of eternal punishment, or God simply enjoys tormenting people for eternity. I leave it up to you do decide which is more likely.
As a fun thought experiment, consider this - no-one is reprieved from Hell, but you can be banished from Heaven (there is precedent, after all). So over an infinite period of time, how likely is it that you won't find a way to nark God and end up cast into the flames? Unfortunately, it's inevitable. We all end up in Hell eventually. Thanks, God.
Your basic argument seems to flow as follows:
P1. If I were God, I would not create a place of eternal torment.
P2. The Christian God has created a place of eternal torment.
C1. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
But, even if we accept P1 and P2, C1 does not logically follow from them.
To put it another way, you seem to be imposing some purely arbitrary rules on what God ought and ought not do, then concluding that He doesn't exist if He doesn't follow your rules. How did you come to the conclusions that (A) God ought to behave as you tell Him to, and (B) He doesn't exist if He doesn't obey?
BTW, your thought experiment neglects the fact that all humans in heaven have been eternally forgiven. Thanks, God.
As far as I can tell, you believe God is in control of everything.
This “infinite debt” example is essential to your argument. If it doesn’t make any sense, then your argument doesn’t make any sense.
If God made you serve 79 years instead of 80, then God must want you to serve 79 years instead of 80. This means in the 1 year of “non-service,” you were actually complying with God's wants, and thus serving God, whether you were aware of it or not, or whether you wanted to or not.
Even if someone was an atheist, and "didn't serve" your God a single year for the full 80 years, they still don’t come up short in the way you proposed. On your view, God makes the atheist "not serve," which would be in compliance with what God's wants for that person, which means that that person DID serve their entire 80 years.
The argument you present confuses the following two things:
1. What God commands us to do.
2. What God causes us to do.
These are two separate and distinct things, not to be confused with each other.
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=164
I didn't confuse those two things.
A more general form of my argument can be summed up as follows:
1: God’s will is morally perfect.
2: Everything that happens is God’s will.
3: Therefore, everything that happens is morally perfect.
Premise 1 is necessarily true, because God is wholly morally perfect. Premise 2 is true as well, because God causes everything. If something happens, it is because God willed it. Nothing that happens is ever contrary to God’s will. To disagree with Premise 2 is to suggest that at least some things that happen are contrary to God’s will. Both Premises being true, the conclusion logically follows.
Our actions certainly fall into the category of “everything that happens.” We can do no wrong.
Justice then, as you have rightly said in another post, “demands vindictive retribution and merited punishment.” But since we necessarily can do no wrong, there is necessarily no merited punishment to be had for us.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
If you will remember, my original contention was this: “it isn’t logical to even propose the example of someone living 80 years and only serving God for 79.”
My argument supports a more general form of my original contention, which is as follows: “It is irrational to say that someone has done something wrong.” From this contention, we see that the statement, “It is irrational to say Justice is done through the punishment of Hell,” is necessarily true, because sending people to Hell entails that God is unjust (a deliverer of unmerited punishment,) which is not coherent.
This supports my original contention, because to propose your example would suggest two things: 1. that it is rational to say that someone has done something wrong, and 2. that it is rational to say Justice is done through the punishment of Hell. Both of these suggestions are refuted by my argument.
My argument has not been refuted.
My argument supports my contention.
My contention still stands.
Thanks
God's actions always follow His commands for Himself. They are therefore good and perfect WITH RESPECT TO GOD'S MORAL BEHAVIOR.
Man does not always do as God commands (but always does as God causes) and, when his actions do not follow God's commands, they are not perfect WITH RESPECT TO MAN'S MORAL BEHAVIOR.
Not only is your argument confusing CAUSATION with COMMAND, exactly as I said, but it is also confusing the SUBJECT of the moral laws in question, exchanging God for man. Simply because God acted perfectly and morally when He caused a man to murder, it does not therefore follow that the man acted morally when he murdered.
God bless.
1. That I confused Causation with Command.
2. That I confused the subject of the moral laws in question.
1. I did not confuse the two. I connected “our actions” with God’s Nature, and thus Moral Goodness. You seem to confuse Morality with Command. Those are two very different things. A command only carries moral significance if it is in accordance with “the good.” I see no reason to view a command, in and of itself, no matter the source, as grounding for objective morality, and indeed no serious philosopher thinks commands ground objective morality either. Most modern theologians, such as William Lane Craig, argue that God’s very Nature is “the good,” and then go on to argue that His commands carry moral significance because they reflect His Nature, grounding them in “the good.” The distinction between Causation and Command is irrelevant to my argument. It was you who confused Command with Objective Moral Goodness!
Your contentions have been debunked.
My argument shows that everything, including us, is in perfect compliance with, and never contrary to, “the good.” You have not refuted either of the premises, so the conclusion still stands.
If you will remember, my contention is this: It is irrational to propose someone has done something wrong. From this, we see it is irrational to say that Justice is done through the punishment of Hell (because Justice entails delivering merited punishment), and that it is irrational to propose the “infinite debt” example in your answer.
My argument supports my contention(s).
My argument has not been refuted.
My contention(s) stand.
"On your view, God makes the atheist 'not serve,' which would be in compliance with what God wants for that person, which means that person DID serve their entire 80 years."
The "service" here in question would be obeying God's commands. With this in mind, your basic argument seems to be that since God caused them to disobey His command, they therefore obeyed His command.
But that is not my claim; it is not the Christian claim; and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise without equating "cause" with "command".
--
"Because we are just tools, to say 'that man ought not to have killed the other man,' is the equivalent of saying 'God ought not to have killed that man with the other man,' which is absurd!"
If an author creates an immoral character, then by this logic it seems the author himself is immoral. Your argument again confuses the subject of the moral question.
God bless.
Second section: "If an author creates an immoral character, then by this logic it seems the author himself is immoral."
Exactly my point. And because God cannot be immoral by definition, then we necessarily must not be immoral characters. My argument doesn't confuse the subject; I already showed why this criticism is founded on the idea that command is related to morality, which I see no reason to think. You didn't contest this point at all.
My argument goes as follows:
1: God’s will is morally perfect.
2: Everything that happens is God’s will.
3: Therefore, everything that happens is morally perfect.
My contention: it is irrational to say someone has done wrong, and irrational to suggest Justice is done through punishment of Hell, which is what your infinite debt example tries to suggest, making it irrational.
My argument supports my contention(s).
My argument has not been refuted.
My contention(s) stand.
Response: Your objection is either wrong or a false analogy. Assuming the author's nature is the standard for morality in the story world (and it must be or the analogy is a false one,) then the author cannot create an immoral character. An immoral character would be a character that went against the author's will, and that is impossible. A command is only relevant to morality if it is grounded in the good, the authors nature. The authors will reflects his nature. If the author commands his character to eat bread, and he causes the character to drink milk instead, the characters actions are not immoral, they are in accordance with the authors will and thus his moral nature. The command didn't reflect the authors nature, so it is irrelevant to morality.
You: "The "service" here in question would be obeying God's commands."
No. It isn't. We are talking about Morality and Justice. So service means acting morally. As I have pointed out before, a command is only relevant to morality if it is grounded in the good. The good is God's nature. If God's command reflects his nature, then fine. If God's command does not reflect his nature, it is irrelevant to morality. Here is a similar example to the one I listed above. If God commands us not to kill, and He causes us to kill, then our action is not immoral, because it is in accordance with "the good." God's command was IRRELEVANT to the morality of the action, because it was not grounded in "the good." A command is only relevant to morality if it is grounded in the good
I think you are saying that in Christianity, humans are moral if they do what God causes them to do, because God is the basis for morality.
However, in Christianity, obedience to God's commands is what is considered moral (Mark 12:28-30; John 14:15; Romans 1:21). God obeys His own commands for Himself 100% of the time (2 Timothy 2:13; Philippians 2:8). It is easy to see that He is thus perfectly moral (Mark 10:18; 1 Peter 1:19).
If we posit a hypothetical religion in which it is believed that doing what God causes us to do is what is moral, and God causes everything, then in such a religion, there would be no such thing as transgressions, justice, or punishment, and the question would be moot.
Of course, I know of no such religion.
God bless.
But when we sentence a person, it isn't primarily determined by how long they've been committing a particular crime (though that may weigh-in on the final decision). Rather, it is the nature of the crime itself that impacts the punishment and sentencing. Moreover, even if you were correct, the time spent doesn't have to be "torture" across the board for all acts of so-called “sin”. If governments used your understanding of justice, then if you shoplifted a candy bar from a store, then you would be punished as equally as a serial killer. Both would deserve the same prison term and same level of punishment.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the Christian position. To "cause" and to "command", as I have been using them, are two totally different things. When you say "clay doesn't conform to God's satisfaction" the two are being equated.
The Christian position is that it satisfies God to cause the clay to do other than what He commands it do to do, and that this is ultimately good. It's similar (not identical) to an author who creates an evil character in a novel. Is the author evil or a poor writer because the character does not do what the author believes is moral?
Since we know that God exists and is the ultimate cause of all temporal things and the definition of good because of the impossibility of the contrary, and since we know that we do not always do as we ought, no other perspective is logically coherent.
All you've said is that God is good because he is the standard for determining what is good. But you still have not provided any evidence for accepting this other than mere assertions. The question still remains: why should we believe that God is the standard for what is good? Quoting the Bible is not convincing evidence. At best, it only demonstrates that the human authors of the Bible viewed God as good. But proof is still demanded.
So to you, goodness is ultimately whatever God deems it to be, based on his whim. Moses... Joshua... Hitler... Jim Jones... there's no difference? All claimed to be doing the work of God.
Seems like heaven will be wonderful place where you can reunite with your fellow Christian brothers.
"Moses... Joshua... Hitler... Jim Jones... there's no difference? All claimed to be doing the work of God. Seems like heaven will be wonderful place where you can reunite with your fellow Christian brothers."
"I haven't stolen a single moment from God under your view."
Your claim quoted above combines the concepts of CAUSE and COMMAND, which are not the same thing.
God causes masses to attract. We call this "natural law". God commands us not to commit adultery. We call this "moral law". Both are "laws", but one is always obeyed of necessity. The other "ought" to be obeyed. One God causes to always be true. The other, God commands to always be true, but does not cause it to be so. Often, He causes it NOT to be so.
My argument above is based on the premise that God has given you your life on the condition that you use it in obedience to God's commands. If God causes you to disobey His commands, then you have disobeyed His commands and failed to meet the conditions for the life you were given. This means you are now in debt, having expended a life that was not properly yours to expend, since God caused you to fail to meet the prerequisites of ownership.
I hope this clarifies things.
A salvation by works is the normal human inclination. However, if you've ever actually tried to get rid of your own evil deeds altogether, you know that the problem is not your works per se, but your will. But this is exactly why the good news of Jesus Christ is such good news! Instead of us working to appease God, God does the work to appease Himself. That which no other method can successfully accomplish -- the removal of guilt and sin from the human being -- Christ has done for us!
This is compounded by the fact that a sin against an infinitely good God deserves an appropriately long punishment. Maybe not infinite - but lengthy. We all commit 100s of sins each week so our guilt is great. In Hell we commit more sins than we do now since God's restraint has been removed. So our time in Hell increases, not decreases, our guilt.
Last, consider this progression. Punching a peer in the face is bad. Punching my father in the face is worse. Punching mother worse still. How should we measure crimes against our perfectly good Heavenly Father from whom we have received all things?