A girl asked the question, “If God is love why is there hell?”
The question argues against God’s existence, love’s existence, or both. Dealing with the argument against God’s existence, this question’s logic will always be foolish because the assumptions are foolish. Therefore the examples, will be foolish to imagine because they’re foolish to begin with- just like the girl’s question.
Here are the following problems with the question I will address below: The question both assumes God exists, but assumes God doesn’t exist. It assumes the law of non-contradiction but breaks it at the same time. It assumes logic must make sense but doesn’t make sense itself. And lastly it assumes that an objective morality exists while ignoring its divine origin.
First off, the question assumes God’s existence to deny it. How?
Because the question already answers itself, by asking if God could exist, the question suggests God does not exist. This makes several contradictions depending on what assumptions it takes: The question may assume God’s existence and hell’s existence, God’s existence only, hell’s existence only, or God nor hell’s existence.
If assuming God and hell exist, the question seeks to illustrate that they contradict, and reason that God and hell can not mutually exist. But if neither can exist together, then why ask a question that assumes they both exist? A similar question might attempt to prove oranges and apples cannot sit on a table together, when they’re sitting right in front of you. Or explained another way, the question attempts to prove circles and rectangles don’t exist by reasoning that if circles and rectangles did exist, they would contradict even when they do exist. Unless of course the questioner believes that reality contradicts.
If assuming God exists but hell doesn’t or vice versa, then the question still attempts to show a contradiction that makes no sense. It would be like assuming oranges don’t exist, then proving that apples cannot exist because oranges. In other words, starting with the premise that oranges don’t exist, and another premise that apples do exist, and then concluding that orange can’t exist because apples exist.
If the question assumes that that neither God nor hell exists, then the question becomes even more nonsensical or absurd. The question attempts to prove that God doesn’t exist because a non-existent God and non-existent hell cannot exist together. That’s like saying square circles and round rectangles don’t exist because square circles and round rectangles cannot exist at the same time.
The assumptions also lead to the second problem: The question appeals to the law of non-contradiction while breaking it. The question argues implicity that God and hell cannot exist at the same time and same sense and contradict. But the question cannot both assume God doesn’t exist and prove so by assuming God exists. That’s like showing square circles don’t exist by imagining a square circle- it contradicts.
The third problem is the question assumes logic should make sense. By this I mean that the question assumes that statements, like the one made above shouldn’t be contradictory. That’s why the question assumes that the question makes sense and God doesn’t.
The fourth and last problem is the question assumes morality. If I’m not logical do you need to listen to me? If I am logical what if you don’t listen? Does listening to logic make a difference? It should. It’s the difference between wisdom and foolishness.
If logic did not make a difference then why ask the question in the first place? Who cares if God is unloving! To imply that hell is unloving, you first have to know what is loving. If the girl asking doesn’t believe God exists, then why does her non-existing God have to be loving? Christians believe God is love and God exists, but in this case, an athiest is arguing that God should be loving to prove God doesn’t exist. If her argument doesn’t make sense, it shouldn’t because the argument is foolish.
Let’s think of this scenario: A God that loves you, decides to force you to be in his presence forever. Even if you hate him. Even if you deny his existence. Even if you break his laws. Even if you curse him. This scenario makes God’s heaven seem like hell, and hell (eternal seperation from a God they hate) like heaven. I can list a few people who’d rather go to hell then be forced to be in God’s presence. Thus, this question does not make sense in an atheist worldview, much less a Christian one. It’s a nonsense question, borrowing the idea of love, the idea of God, the idea of Hell, and combining them while appealing to a subjective sense of morality and attempting to be objective.
I would answer the question “How can God be love if He sends people to Hell?” with another question, “What’s wrong with that?” Even asking the question assumes there is a morality that applies to everyone. So go ahead. Ask. And borrow from the Christian worldview, taking Christian sense and making atheist nonsense.
An atheist stirring love, logic, morality, God, and hell all together gets instant nonsense.