If you say that a unicorn has one horn, then you are completely correct. There is nothing indeterminate about that.
Similarly, it’s possible to say true and false statements about the Star Wars universe. As well, it’s possible to say indeterminate statements about it.
The only thing that one can rationally discuss concerning the non-existent is tautological to its concept definition. To claim that the thing is right or wrong about something requires that the thing be more than merely a defined concept.
No, there will be logical consequences of the definition.
Moreover, Star Wars does not define … it states what happens in an imagined universe. Therefore, events must be based on simple logic rather than definitions. For example, when a character is in one place, he cannot be simultaneously in another.
The logical consequences are not the “thing”.
I suspect you haven’t examined modern pop films enough.
A fictional story defines a conceptual situation. What proposed events and their coherency that might follow might or might not be logical. Still a story is merely a defined conceptual flow of fictional events. You can only logically discuss what was defined to be true, not what “really is true”, because there is no real to it: "What would superman REALLY have done?" - silly question.
Even superman could not be in two places at once. Therefore, there are logical limitations within fictional constructions.
Only if he was conceptually defined in that way. Some fictional superheroes can be in two places at once. I think there was one featured in the X-men series.
… not to mention Quantum Fantasy Physics.
What about Universalism? What about believing in God but not Hell? What if you aren’t a Christian?
What about them? You have something to say?
Christian Universalists believe that everybody goes to Heaven, regardless of your beliefs or actions. (Granted, most Christians aren’t Universalists.)
There are a lot of people who believe in God but not Hell … I am an example of which. My believe in the afterlife is like a combination of futurism and universalism. I believe even atrocious people will exist again, but they will be heavily modified to fit the needs of the future. Even good people will be altered, but not as much.
As far as not being a Christian, this kind of goes along with my second argument - the belief in God but not Hell. The title of this thread is Why God is Inherently Wrong but should be titled Why the Christian God is Inherently Wrong (Except for a Universalist God). In any case, there’s probably just as many people who believe in God and think non-believers are going to Hell as much so as the ones that don’t believe in Hell. And that reminds me…
What if you believe in God, believe in Hell, but believe that only bad people go to it, completely disregarding faith? There’s plenty of moderate Christians who believe in such a notion.
In any case, this argument completely falls apart once you realize how narrow a viewpoint it (and the people who believe in this) really is.
I don’t think you understand the argument then. This has all been hashed out throughout this thread. We’ve come to a general consensus that either God is not all-loving or just or hell is not eternal. The point of the argument, once you actually pick apart the OP, is that God’s omnibenevolence and the eternity of hell are not logically compatible (the “inherently” part of the title was a hint at that). There’s a lot of logical inconsistencies that people like to dig up about formal Christian doctrine. I thought I stumbled across another, one that I don’t recall anyone pointing out before. I thought it was a neat argument… so I posted it.
Gibgib,
Can “only” stand in for “all”? Also, is this speculating about “individually just” aspects from that of an eternal being doled out to individuals based on their relationship with him, other beings, and the natural world wherein we experience human form?
Wendy, darling, [size=50](<-- wanted to say that since you changed your name)[/size]
“Only” could stand in for “all”; “all” is supposed to be the archaic version of “omni” ← so whatever that means. “Only” seems to insinuate that God never hates, and that’s a kind of “omni”.
As to your other question, I think “justice” is supposed to insinuate objectivity–as in blind justice–blind because she is not swayed by bias or prejudice, as a judge might be if the accused were a family member. I think love has to supplement justice because of this–because blind justice on its own is cold–fair, but cold–it is nothing but indifferent calculation, the weighing of the scales. For the Christian God to be the loving father he is depicted to be, his cold, calculated justice must be supplemented with the warmth of love–and if the two ever come into conflict–for example, it being necessary to punish an extremely wicked person–God could do nothing but weep for the poor soul.
But Gibgib,
We’re talking of a Father helping his children with advice, with discipline, with eternity. Does a good parent rule over all with an iron fist? Or does he tailor his guidance to each individual child? This is what religions fail to let people understand, your relationship with your grandest parent is between you and him, not them. He’d probably give you another “Do Over” if you chose to segue towards evil, repeatedly, at some point during eternity, you’ll probably wise up, but Men are much more stubborn than Women. Most Men refuse medical treatment until they’re about to lose a testicle, so God has his work cut out for him.
This whole argument comes from a Christian standpoint then.
From my unique approach to God, this argument is completely pointless. My definition of God is the Omniverse, a panendeism version of such a notion. I also consider things like Milky Way’s center and our Sun to be deities. The sun can make a sunny day, but it can force you to be happy? No. A hot, summer day can make it feel like Hell, but is it Hell literally? Of course not! There will always be days where it gets colder.
I get it. From a Christian standpoint you are saying that YAHWEH has to either possess some sort of malevolence or Hell itself cannot take place for eternity. The funny thing is, from a Muslim-viewpoint this is true. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Muslims believe that everybody goes to paradise/Heaven, but only after their “trail” by fire, per se.
I would say that your argument comes across as if everybody has a pure intention. Think about it. Maybe there are truly evil people in this world, who will always be evil no matter what they do to fix it. I’m talking about people that are sociopaths, psychopaths, or people with conduct disorder. Do you want God to give these kinds of people the same privilege as those who act saintly in their lifetimes? Maybe for the eternally sinful they should be in Hell for eternity. If you start letting the rapists, murderers, and child molesters into Heaven, well it wouldn’t be Heaven anymore, would it?
(I don’t agree with anything I said regarding the last paragraph, I’m simply trying to play devil’s advocate.)
Wendy,
So how would you say this changes things as far as God’s justice goes? Would it not be objective? Would it be inconsistent? Would justice be determined more on what one particular child may be satisfied with but not another?
^ Now, now, Darling, let’s not take this to a sexist place. 
Mackerni,
I do that all the time. 
Umm… I think God can change DNA
gib.
This is pretty Christian, in my point of view.
No. Panendeism. Let me educate you. Pantheism is the belief that everything inside the Universe is God. Pandeism is the belief that everything inside the Universe is God, but that when the Universe was created, it lost its power to regulate itself. Panentheism is the belief that something outside the Universe is God but not the Universe itself, and yet still is a personal God like pantheism. Panendeism is the belief that something outside of the Universe is God, but it has no control or say in our Universal affairs. So, in retrospect, theism means personal God, deism means impersonal God, pan- means all, and panen- everything outside of the Universe. There’s also omnitheism, the belief that all Gods are real, omnism, the belief that all religions are true, and omnideism, the belief that all God are real, but they are impersonal. (I swear the only thing I made up in this whole paragraph is omnideism.)
As regarding your last part of your paragraph, this is why I am also a henotheism. Henotheism is the belief in one God above all else, but that there are deities below which that exists. I believe stars, galactic black holes, and superclusters all have their unique properties that ‘keep things together’.
As I say below, I don’t agree with it I just played devil’s advocate. My belief is that when we return to form, we will be ‘programmed’ to not be able to do certain things.
Well, then, we have something in common. 
Gibgib wrote
Do you desire a spoiled rotten soul Gibgib? How do you feel when you misbehave a little? A lot? Any regrets? Any self-forgiveness?
Ecmandu,
But would he be obligated to?
Let’s suppose that DNA could determine a person’s status as “evil” (rediculous as far as I’m concerned, but let’s just say). Then once the person’s born, that person is evil. God may be able to undo that by changing the person’s DNA, but another perfectly good response to evil is to punish it. So God would not be in the wrong to do so.
Mackerni,
Dude, guess what, I just invented a new religion today! I call it Barbraism. It involves:
It also involves the belief in a chick named Barbra who was born 300 years ago from a virgin hippopotamus and claimed to be the daughter of God (the Mother). She says we all gotta eat perogies every Tuesday and Thursday or go to Hell for all eternity. Too bad she was crucified–she was a nice chick–but she did it for all our non-perogy eating sins such that even if we fall off the horse on the odd Tuesday or Thursday, we can call upon her for forgiven and she will deliver.
^ That was just today. So while you may have had a point yesterday, as of now, my arguments apply to at least Barbraism in addition to Christianity.
So what would a henotheist say about the role of human beings and their ability to love one another in relation to other “higher” dieties? For example, would you consider mother Earth–Gaia–a demigoddess who protects and provides for us, and in that sense cares for us?
You like playing Devil’s advocate, I like playing around with logic.
Wendy,
Yeah, kind of, except it doesn’t have to be a spoiled soul–just picking one soul and catering to their idea of justice. But it sounds like you have in mind a God who looks right to the depths of a person’s soul and finds out exactly what they need to learn and grow. This could be objective justice–assuming there is an objective fact of the matter concerning what a person needs in order to learn and grow–but also subjective since it is based on a person’s needs which is a culminations of desires, wants, emotional dispositions, tastes, opinions, values, etc. (in addition to a whole bunch of objective factors).
Still, though, I’m finding it hard to imagine how such needs can be met for every single individual on this planet when we live in a world of conflicting needs and wants, limited resources, clashing values and beliefs, etc. ← Essentially everything Biggy gripes about. Surely there must be some scenarios in which God can’t (short of performing miracles) satisfy the needs of two or more people who’s needs are in conflict. Say they’re both wondering in the desert and they don’t have enough water to keep them alive until they get to civilization, but each one could kill the other and take the water for himself, which would be enough, just barely, to keep him alive until he gets to civilization.
I have no soul. 
Gib,
Not Obligated to ??
I thought the discussion was about eternal punishment and not just punishment !!
Seems a bit harsh if God can change hearts and DNA at will, don’t you think??!?’