Let me give you the religious and scientific answer

[_grindael]

A clarification if you will indulge me:

Hell exists and takes the form of people smug assholes who believe in it and can't wait to let you know why you are going there.

[_huckelberry]

huckleberry
Of course I know this will touch on the unknown even after I observe that death is not pretty for anybody and we all come here to die.

And what fascinates me is that it didn't have to be this way if God was a God of love. Death is unnecessary and demonstrates, from a certain point of view that God really is the most ultimate murderer

Philo, I do not think I am so slow as to miss your point. At least as I hear it you think that the idea of God contains enough inconsistency to demonstrate there is no God.

Perhaps, but I am completely unconvinced by your first proposal, that it didn't have to be that way, with this worlds danger and death. Perhaps my view of God drifts a bit close to thnking that God is the foundation of the way things are. But I still can think of God choosing. I suspect that God, considering the dangers of the evil free spirits such as humans can do decided this sort of world is necessary. In this world events follow their own pattern of cause and result within which we have to struggle to survive. Perhaps this is the only way for us to learn both courage and the willingness to suffer to help others. Learning those lessons may be necessary for us to leave the kind of hell we are quite capable of creating.

But of course I am not the doctor who knows for sure how spirits are created and how they may become immune to the evil we can see in people. I can imagine there could be a happier and easier way but knowing that such a way exists I do not.

I am stuck with making the best of the way presented by this life we have and it does involve suffering and death.

[_moksha]

You could always fudge a bit and say the plains of the Serengeti and Olduvai Gorge were once in Missouri, next to the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

[_thews]

This is fairly simple, so let's play devil's advocate.. Does hell exist? (answer the question)

If yes, then God is the evil demon painted in Descartes' analogy.

If no, then you are wrong.

When put into perspective, if God "creates" souls to follow a scripted path he actually spells out and holds them accountable, then damns them to hell for all eternity for not following the information he didn't actually give them, then God is a asshole. I don't think God is an asshole, but I believe God exists... your God is an asshole.

It's not really my job to answer yes or no in those situations. I would simply explain what hell is in religious terms. Religions teach hell is...

Then I would say science has yet to prove or disprove the existence of hell. My kids can then determine what answer works best for them.

Ok, let's start with your comment... "To date, I have yet to see my kids accept the religious answer as acceptable. Without indoctrination, the religious answer even at a young age seems implausible to their observable world."

The operative word "observable" in your statement cannot be won by either argument, but science can claim it may be able to prove their argument eventually... I'll disagree. The scientific method is based on the observable world, but the concept of matter being produced where *nothing* exists cannot be observed. It can however be theorized, but absolute *nothingness* is infinite and something cannot come from *nothing*, because it doesn't exist.

So where does that leave us? On one hand, your kids are being taught to prove things before they believe them. Religion cannot be proven, so it takes a leap of faith to place belief in it. Science is moving at a rapid rate and new discoveries happen all the time, so claiming the *proof* hasn't been found yet is more plausible to them.

in my opinion, if you're going to have a convincing argument regarding what you deem is the "acceptable" religious answer, you must have a firm grasp of why you believe what you believe. It's why I asked you if you believed in hell. Riddle me this and let me know if you find this argument unacceptable:

God exists. There is no "true" religion and there is no hell. Life's purpose is to teach the soul emotion. The serial killer and the pope share the same fate... what that fate is is not known, but it's not a judgment. You live your life and you die. What you take with you is emotion based on your experience.

I could delve into numerous reasons Mormonism is demonstrably false, but that's not the point. If you wish to make a solid argument in belief in God, magic rocks placed in a hat isn't a very solid base for those that don't subscribe to magical thinking. Try taking the challenge of Descartes' meditation and disavow everything you think you believe in, then consider what it is you actually do believe in. Once you have found this middle ground, your argument should be more convincing, mainly because you actually believe it instead of regurgitating what you've been taught to believe.

[_Sanctorian]

Thews, I'm not making an argument to my kids. I'm not trying to define their beliefs. That's ultimately their decision. I'm just presenting information. My information could be 100% false (and very likely is in a lot of situations because I'm not a smart man). My information is no doubt shaping their current worldview, but this exercise is designed to get them to realize there are lots of "answers" from different sources to their questions. I hope they start to question even my responses at some point.

They are still very young so I doubt it means much to them at this point, but later in life, I hope they do just as you suggested in your post and find an "acceptable" answer for themselves. That answer could very well be religion. That's ok. However, without indoctrination at an early age, their observable world is having a hard time finding a place for religion and even simple science is already a more acceptable answer to them.

Now, the second part of your post directed towards me:

Riddle me this and let me know if you find this argument unacceptable:

God exists. There is no "true" religion and there is no hell. Life's purpose is to teach the soul emotion. The serial killer and the pope share the same fate... what that fate is is not known, but it's not a judgment. You live your life and you die. What you take with you is emotion based on your experience.

That's certainly an acceptable argument but since we all share the same fate, I personally find little value in that God and will continue to ignore Him since the end result is the same as a serial killer.

[_thews]

Thews, I'm not making an argument to my kids. I'm not trying to define their beliefs. That's ultimately their decision. I'm just presenting information. My information could be 100% false (and very likely is in a lot of situations because I'm not a smart man). My information is no doubt shaping their current worldview, but this exercise is designed to get them to realize there are lots of "answers" from different sources to their questions. I hope they start to question even my responses at some point.

They are still very young so I doubt it means much to them at this point, but later in life, I hope they do just as you suggested in your post and find an "acceptable" answer for themselves. That answer could very well be religion. That's ok. However, without indoctrination at an early age, their observable world is having a hard time finding a place for religion and even simple science is already a more acceptable answer to them.

Now, the second part of your post directed towards me:

Riddle me this and let me know if you find this argument unacceptable:

God exists. There is no "true" religion and there is no hell. Life's purpose is to teach the soul emotion. The serial killer and the pope share the same fate... what that fate is is not known, but it's not a judgment. You live your life and you die. What you take with you is emotion based on your experience.

That's certainly an acceptable argument but since we all share the same fate, I personally find little value in that God and will continue to ignore Him since the end result is the same as a serial killer.

I didn't imply you should ignore God. What I am implying is not to fear him. God knows all and we are all not on the same page. Jeffry Dalmer did not choose to be born with that brain. You were not born with that brain or circumstance, so the playing field is not level... I would ask that you think before you judge.

It's sad in my opinion that kids are taught not to believe in God. The "argument" as I attempted to state previously is not intended to be "correct" and win the argument... but rather to point out infinite thoughts are beyond the comprehension level of any human; regardless of how intelligent they are. Something coming from *nothing* is impossible. Whether or not it's wrapped up in religion or science, it's impossible and that's a fact in our observable universe. *nothing* doesn't exist, so it can't take a "new" form. It's magical thinking either way. Throw in arguments with quantum physics and pretend to understand the null hypothesis, but no one will ever make a valid argument of how *nothing* became something else ... because that's impossible and that is also a fact; at least to a non-magical thinker.

[_Sanctorian]

Thews, you're doing exactly what you're telling me not to do. That is, push a conclusion/belief without knowing the "real" answer. At least, that's what it appears to me.

I'm not implying to my kids there is a God or there is not a God. You are concluding there is a God and that's certainly acceptable, but to say it's "sad" kids are being raised not to believe in God is the exact opposite of what you said earlier which is ALL possibilities are endless because neither religion or science has figured it out yet. That must also include the non existence of God might be true and teaching kids that is one possible answer is not "sad", but must have equal weight as a possibility of reality. If my kids believe in God, great. If the decide to not believe in God, equally great. What's "sad" about that?

[_thews]

Thews, you're doing exactly what you're telling me not to do. That is, push a conclusion/belief without knowing the "real" answer. At least, that's what it appears to me.

That's not what I said at all.

I'm not implying to my kids there is a God or there is not a God.

Ok.

You are concluding there is a God and that's certainly acceptable, but to say it's "sad" kids are being raised not to believe in God is the exact opposite of what you said earlier which is ALL possibilities are endless because neither religion or science has figured it out yet.

That's not what I said. I think it's "sad" that what kids are taught (in my opinion) makes the conclusion that there is no God based on science, but ignores the fact that matter cannot come from something that doesn't exist.

That must also include the non existence of God might be true and teaching kids that is one possible answer is not "sad", but must have equal weight as a possibility of reality. If my kids believe in God, great. If the decide to not believe in God, equally great. What's "sad" about that?

Nothing. I'm a dad and took the same stance in that what they decided was up to them, but I did offer my opinion because I have thought about it.