Aravnah Ornan

One frequent objection to those religions that teach eternal hell is that a deity that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent could find a way to accept the repentance of the damned in hell. An answer that I've head from apologists is that one's spiritual state is fixed at death.

But why should that be the case? Under that rule, we eventually see conclusive evidence as to whether we've made the right faith decision, but only after that decision has become eternally irrevocable. Before then, we have to play a guessing game as to whether there is a hell, whether it's the Christian or Muslim hell, which denomination within either Christianity or Islam can properly teach us to avoid it, etc. Why is "faith" of that sort so much more pleasing to the deity than knowledge based on evidence?

Magus55

If you were standing in front of God, in awe of His majesty and glory, do you seriously think you'd be able to make an unbiased choice as to accept Him or reject Him? You would know for a fact that if you reject Him, you spend eternity in Hell. You also know for a fact what you would be missing out on. Unless you're a masochist, why would you ever reject God if you knew your fate??

Ojuice5001

And there's a dilemma posed by the question of whether the damned have free will. If they have free will, they can repent. So either God accepts the repentance of anyone who does, or he says to them, "No, sorry, you didn't accept Jesus forty thousand years ago, so forget it."

On the other hand, if they are incapable of freely choosing to repent, they can no more deserve their sufferings in hell than any other consciousness that lacks free will. So either way (if no one leaves hell), you come up with the conclusion that some of those in hell don't belong there.

funinspace

And if it's really Allah, and not Yahweh, guess we'll have lot's of company to continue the debate :devil3:

Stacey Melissa

We would be making an informed choice if that were the case. Bias would have no more to do with it then than it does now.

But if God is just playing games with me by withholding information until I die, then he can go fuck himself. I've got better things to do than play games with him, or, more likely, with the priestcraft who propogate the myths of him for their own gain.

Karalora

I believe that's the point the OP is trying to make. The choice would be biased...according to the now-incontrovertible evidence of God's existence. And isn't it good to bias one's choices according to solid evidence? To do otherwise is essentially to choose randomly.

If you are correct in your faith, Magus, then God is requiring us to choose randomly and hope we get lucky. He is requiring us to make the most important decision in existence uninformed.

Magus55

He informed you, you just aren't happy with the information provided. Thats not His problem.

Jeremy Pallant

Actually it is his problem. For example. Taking a situation from my profession, let's suppose I have a problem at work. In order to solve that problem, I need to convince someone else that a) there is a problem and b) only they can solve it. If the evidence I present is insufficient, then it is my responsibility to present better evidence until the person is convinced, and the problem is solved.

Stacey Melissa

I can think of no sort of belief, other than belief in the supernatural, that has, in every case, required faith and/or the utilzation of logical fallacies by its adherents.

Lel

From my limited understanding of the LDS/Mormon practice of proxy baptism for the deceased, it seems that the practice neatly avoids the dilemma of having a spiritual state fixed at the time of death. As such, souls which have left the earth are baptized, but at that point, have free will to accept or reject the baptism performed for them. (I would think that if they were dead, they would be making an informed choice, but I am not wholly familiar with LDS concepts of life after death; perhaps this is not a solution to the dilemma in the OP after all.)

On the other hand, the idea held by many other Christian groups that a benevolent deity permits infinite punishment for a decision which must be made with incomplete information in finite time seems quite paradoxical.