What's the anti-Hell debunking to the "infinite dignity" argument?The argument goes:>P1: God has infinite dignity.>P2: Sin offends God's infinite dignity>P3: An offense against a being's infinite dignity should warrant infinite punishment>Conclusion: Eternal Hell is justified, because it offends God's dignity.It sounds like a bulletproof argument to me, so is there any way to debunk it?
>>18673718Yeah, it's completely unbiblical
>>18673719Care to elaborate?>inb4 aenia just means a long timeThat one's still debated, offer me an actual quote that debunks it.
>>18673719Also, I'd prefer logical arguments over Biblical ones, since this question is also relevant to other faiths with ECT.
>>18673722What do you mean a quote that debunks it? The concept is absent from the Bible entirely. It's completely made up.
>>18673723NTA but all three premises would need to be backed up by something the faith actually says or you're just making up a God. As >>18673726 says this isn't actually in the Bible.If you want to just talk generically, you would need to substantiate P1 and P2 and justify P3.
>>18673726>>18673727So the argument goes: God has infinite dignity, and often the severity of a crime depends on the dignity of the victim. Thus, since Christian/Islamic God is infinite, crimes against them are objectively infinite as they offend their infinite dignity. In other words, it's an infinitely moral crime to sin. Thus, it's a crime that warrants infinite punishment.This argument comes from Thomas Aquinas and Anselm himself, and great philosophers like Ethan Muse have recently argued for this.
>>18673718I would say dignity is a concept that only applies to humans mainly because they reflect God's Glory. You need another concept here than dignity; you could say blashphemy is the reverse action of that thing, and worship plays into it directly. But in the end it's still tied to human nature and the role we play in creation. Transgressing created nature/order must be punished, thinking this way you can't touch and offend God's nature.I would say the inner mechanism of the argument fails because the mechanism of dignity and offense are tied intrinsically to creation and not God's nature. Even so you can approach the problem from another angle. You can say hell is eternal because change cannot occur in that state, and if you've arrived there deffective (without Grace) then hell is the proper punishment for your disorderly condition.
>>18673756>because change cannot occur in that stateBut the problem there is, why couldn't change occur? There's nothing to stop change from happening.
>>18673722The Book of Job quite literally says that no amount of sin can offend God.
>>18673718>MUH HECKIN' DIGNITY>THIS CANNOT GO UNPUNISHED>EVEN THOUGH THE CONCEPT OF "CANNOT" SHOULD NOT APPLY TO ME BECAUSE I'M GOD
>>18673755I understand how the argument goes, what I don't understand is where the Bible says any of this:>God has infinite dignity, and often the severity of a crime depends on the dignity of the victim. Thus, since Christian/Islamic God is infinite, crimes against them are objectively infinite as they offend their infinite dignityOr why I would accept this>it's an infinitely moral crime to sin. Thus, it's a crime that warrants infinite punishment.Incidentally the Catholic Church declared a few years ago that humans have infinite dignity.
>>18673762no time? no change.This isn't a normal earthly state, it's one closer to that of the angels.Unless it's like what we experience now on earth, we can't imagine change can occur how we normally see it.
>>18673718>infinite punishment is justified because it offends god's izzatkek
>>18673773That just does not follow, because an omnipotent God can make things into whatever he wants. He can absolutely choose to make it so the souls of the dead can be changed after death. There should be no reason to make it so a sinner in Hell can't recant and atone for the crimes they did.
>>186737183 false assumptions
>>18673781you have no working concept of metaphysics it seems. There are other states than our current one, think as abstracting this one. You have no space or time, just pure concepts. There you can't have change because you don't have causation. God can't make a square circle.
>>18673787>God can't make a square circle.So he's not omnipotent, then?
>>18673791never it was assumed that omnipotence includes logical contradictions. It would break what is reasonable."God can't make a square circle then He does it."is a valid proposition under that view.
>>18673798No, being omnipotent absolutely does imply the capability to break logical contradictions. If God can't break logic, he's not omnipotent, and logic is thus stronger than he is. It would mean he's subservient to logic.
>>18673808says who? you?I am taking actual philosophers and teologians into considerations not some chantard
>>18673767Please look at this: >>18673756My new favorite defense of Hell, and there can be no debunking.
>>18673810Yes, that's what I am saying. The God you're giving me here is nigh-omnipotent, not actually omnipotent. The God you're offering me is acting within frameworks that he can't change, despite having created everything. So in other words, he's working within a framework that he can't change, and the only way to deal with that is by concluding he's working in a framework someone else created. God is subservient to Logic, which pretty much means that someone else set the rules. Your philosophers and theologians... are kinda stupid, if I am honest.
>>18673821come with an argument not reddit half thoughts next and I'll interract. Here I put a 0-1 since you failed to supply at least a thinker that takes your position.
>>18673826Well, you managed to commit multiple fallacies during our short conversation, so I'll agree to leave it at that. I guess I'll go to Hell now if you end up being right.
>>18673814>>18673756>Transgressing created nature/order must be punishedWhy?And where does the Bible say there is no time in hell?
>>18673854Their worm shall not die and the flames never end. But as explained: >>18673787There is no time in Hell. So they can't change.
>>18673854I will not use prot hermeneutics to deal with fine points of theology, it's nonsensical and not what christians from earliest have done.>Why?because that's what sin is. I am being a bit circular here, but you get the point that sin is transgression and sin must be punished.>no time in hell is it on earth? If not then we can assume normal things like time, change and causation don't hold.
>>18673860>is it on earth?That's basically what the Bible says, yes.
>>18673857That answered neither of my questions. Why must transgressing be punished, and where in the Bible does it say there is no time in hell? Because Mark 9:48 doesn't say that.>>18673860I agree if you just make up a hell it can be whatever you want it to be but we are presumably talking about the hell described in the Bible, or as described in some other faith.>because that's what sin is. I am being a bit circular here, but you get the point that sin is transgression and sin must be punished.No, I don't. Why must it be punished?>is it on earth? If not then we can assume normal things like time, change and causation don't hold.Why would I assume this?
>>18673864Go dig a hole and interview the poor souls down there then.
>>18673868You can't, because the Bible pretty clearly tells us that Hell is something yet to come. It doesn't exist yet.
>>18673867again, no prot hermeneutics are assumed here, so not in the Bible = not true doesn't hold>Why must it be punished?I punch you in the face, now what? What does your gut say? Going the it's subjective route locks you out of the whole is it good/bad to do X.>Why would I assume this?I'll use another circular trick and say it's by definition that if it's in time it's earth.>>18673869What is sheol then my nigga?
>>18673718If you want to play with morality using arithmetic, a finite offense against an infinite pool of dignity is collapsed into nothingness. I can't imagine having such a lowly conception of God that you think sin is capable of tarnishing Him.
>>18673872>What does your gut say?My gut tells me that I should talk it out with the person and try to get them to apologize. Not punish them for an eternity.
>>18673872>sheolNot Hell if you're trying to do a gotcha here. And once again, it's also a physical place.
>>18673872>not in the Bible = not trueThis isn't what I am saying but you do need some sort of established textual or traditional basis for what you're saying or it's just a thing you made up.>I punch you in the face, now what? What does your gut say?I am not physically required to punch you back, if that is what you are asking. Whether I might want to is irrelevant when you are saying sin "must" be punished, I can choose to do any number of things.>I'll use another circular trick and say it's by definition that if it's in time it's earth.By definition of what?
>>18673877so there was a wrong commited and a resolution needed, yes? Then we have the formula we need.transgression + punishment = goodincrease one, increase the otherwhy good? Think of a fair judgement during a trial, if it's a correct application of the law then it's good, if it was too hard or too lax it would have been bad.
>>18673787But he can give them a physical body and send them back to Earth, appear before them to talk-no-jutsu them into atoning, and then let them ascend into Heaven. Unless you somehow think God is incapable of doing this?
>>18673885Good point, why wouldn't God do that for people in heaven also? Would there be an issue here?
>>18673881Well, it's good to hear eternal torment is not going to happen, then, because I can't see how any transgression will warrant an infinite punishment, even if it's against God's order. I fear it quite often.
>>18673887I don't really see one.
>>18673889you would constantly shuffle people from both domains, hell and heaven. It makes no narrative sense. It's one life once chance, you are here now, what you do is you and what you end up is the identity you keep.
>>18673892You would have no need to shuffle people from Heaven.
I don't like the form of your argument. I think this is a bit better.P1. Sin offends God's dignity P2. If a being offends God's dignity by sinning then that being deserves punishment P3. Man offends God's dignity by sinning P4. Man deserves punishment P5. God is an infinite being P6. If a being offends another's dignity by sinning then the punishment due for them is proportionate to the worth of the being offended P7. If God is an infinite being then he has infinite dignity P8. God has infinite dignity C. Man deserves infinite punishmentThis is just the classical Anselmian argument, though it's been a while since I've read Anselm, and to my knowledge his argument in Cur Deus Homo is more complex than this.
>>18673814What is this post. Why are you salivating this much about people suffering in hell>My new favorite defense of Hell, and there can be no debunking.Like listen to yourself lmao. This bestial nature of yours is inhuman, and your suffering will be total
