Keep in mind that this is theoretical in nature, Just because one ponders on a theory does not mean one believes in it 100%.

Is god willing and able to stop evil?

If he's not able, he isn't truly god.

If he isn't willing, he must not be loving.

Therefore, God must not fully exist in this dimension. Is it possible, then, that we are in hell?

Before I go any further, when I say "hell" I'm not referring to the orthodox hell. Hell might basically be where god is not.

Now, could this world be merely a hell in disguise? Think of the wars, genocide, hate, suffering, depression, greed, and anger among the earth.

It is an interesting theory, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Epicurus + Matrix = ???

"When they say Christ descended into Hell, they mean that he descended to earth, this penitentiary, this madhouse and morgue of a world." - August Strindberg

That's implying god is all good and the devil is all bad. But in all actuality god encompasses everything. God doesn't make our choices; we create our own hell, we are the devil(s). Then again we are also the saints. This theory is boring.

No this world is not a hell in disguise. I have happy moments as well as unhappy ones.
The entire universe can be a hell or it can be a heaven. It's different for each individual and is determined by how much they fear and how much they love.

Why is a Hell Theory necessary, even from a theistic standpoint?


If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Furthermore, why would God be willing to destroy a piece of his own creation? Why didn't he just eradicate evil to begin with? "Free will" isn't a good enough answer, because God chose to give us free will.

Or did he not have a choice, due to the fact that the propensity for evil must be present in order for good to exist? What if one cannot exist without the other, and the people who wrote about God realized this, and had no choice but to fashion the notion of free will as handed down by God in order to explain away this little impossibility that even the omnipotent God couldn't get around?

Allowing evil in no way means that (the nonexistent) God is not loving.

You don't know His reasons for doing such a thing.

Struggle. Faith. Hope.

What do you think a world ruled by YOUR idea of an all-loving deity would consist of? Perpetual happiness? Absolute fulfillment? What would be the point? What would we strive for? Would we even need to? In such a world, is 100 percent of the peoples getting what they want? Everything they want? Do we have free will in such a world; are WE allowed to do evil to one another?

What do you think a world ruled by YOUR idea of an all-loving deity would consist of? Perpetual happiness? Absolute fulfillment? What would be the point?

Yeah, heaven sounds terrible.

Yeah, heaven sounds terrible.

My point is
what would be the difference between heaven and such an earth?

What would be the point in separating them?

My point is
what would be the difference between heaven and such an earth?

What would be the point in separating them?

I think nonbelievers should be asking you that, not vice versa.

I think nonbelievers should be asking you that, not vice versa.

I AM a nonbeliever, but that does not mean that I can keep my mouth shut when I feel something needs to be said/shown.


I am an enlightener. A truth-seeker. So when something is left undone, I feel the need to do it.

My point is
what would be the difference between heaven and such an earth?

Can you think of something which is neither good or bad? Like how something can be apolitical?

Can you think of something which is neither good or bad? Like how something can be apolitical?

Can I think of something which can be labeled neutral? Yes I can think of something that is neutral in relation to certain other things. But such a thought or idea has no place in this thread.

But, a planet, with a variety of different types of humans imbued with free will, that remains placid, grey, and leans neither towards good nor evil? No, I cannot fathom such a thing.

I'm trying to answer the question of what would be the difference between an Earth which is entirely good and a heaven:

I think a nonbeliever would be content with having an Earth that contains both "good" and "neutral", and a heaven that only contains "Good". That would answer what the difference between heaven and earth would be, as well as till pose a problem for the existence of evil.

I'm trying to answer the question of what would be the difference between an Earth which is entirely good and a heaven:

I think a nonbeliever would be content with having an Earth that contains both "good" and "neutral", and a heaven that only contains "Good". That would answer what the difference between heaven and earth would be, as well as till pose a problem for the existence of evil.

But
what about people who strive for a certain something, be it a new car, the answer to a certain math problem, a book that they've been wanting since childhood, happy parents, or a hangout spot that isn't littered with immature ravers?

Their search for such a thing eventually turns to a lifelong quest, looking for what they desire. If they remain unattained, then they continue to remain unfulfilled; not content. How can such a search exist in a world ruled by an all-loving deity?

Say you are 15, suicidal, and want a bf/gf REALLY bad, and curse God because you are single. Does that make him not all-loving?

EDIT: Is He not all-loving because no other human has exercised his/her free will to become your bf/gf?
Why do you blame God for our own evils?

It's the classic problem of evil: how can an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God allow suffering? Often people will say because God gave us freewill for a reason and you can't have freewill without sin, but surely you can have freewill without natural disasters and physical ailments?

It's the classic problem of evil: how can an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God allow suffering? Often people will say because God gave us freewill for a reason and you can't have freewill without sin, but surely you can have freewill without natural disasters and physical ailments?

For all you know, God has destroyed planet-destroying hurricanes and virii, has made sure the San Andreas fault didn't split miles apart 24 years ago, and has protected Tokyo from an outbreak of ebola.

Even though I don't believe in God, I still realize that if He did exist, it stands to reason that perhaps, perhaps, perhaps He has halted numerous wide-scale deaths.

You look at the starving children today, or the tsunami a few years ago, and think how can God allow such a thing...

But yesterday (hypothetically) He made sure the whole of Australia didn't get bombarded with millions of meteor(ite)s.

But
what about people who strive for a certain something, be it a new car, the answer to a certain math problem, a book that they've been wanting since childhood, happy parents, or a hangout spot that isn't littered with immature ravers?

What does that have to do with anything? If that is neutral it would exist in the Earth I suggest. If that is good then it could exist in either the heaven or Earth I suggest.

Is He not all-loving because no other human has exercised his/her free will to become your bf/gf?
Why do you blame God for our own evils?An omnipotent god would have the power to make those humans "exercise their free will" while at the same time making them become my gf.

Even if he does not, there still exists problems that have absolutely nothing to do with our free will. People that are born with disease, natural disasters, people that die before they are really even conscious of making or not making a choice. To say that the evils that exist are all "our evils" is ridiculous.

For all you know, God has destroyed planet-destroying hurricanes and virii, has made sure the San Andreas fault didn't split miles apart 24 years ago, and has protected Tokyo from an outbreak of ebola.

Even though I don't believe in God, I still realize that if He did exist, it stands to reason that perhaps, perhaps, perhaps He has halted numerous wide-scale deaths.

You look at the starving children today, or the tsunami a few years ago, and think how can God allow such a thing...

But yesterday (hypothetically) He made sure the whole of Australia didn't get bombarded with millions of meteor(ite)s.

If God is good enough to stop wide-scale hypothetical disasters/diseases why is he not good enough to stop the real ones (hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes etc)? To those who fall victim to the actual natural disasters, God's decision to stop the meteorites from hitting Australia was a bit irrelevant.

God allows disasters etc to happen because in Gods eyes they are not "Bad".
In a reality where life is everlasting, the death of a persons body is not the end of them, just the beginning of a new state of being.

The universe is made of energy. Energy cannot be destroyed, it only changes form.

God allows disasters etc to happen because in Gods eyes they are not "Bad".
In a reality where life is everlasting, the death of a persons body is not the end of them, just the beginning of a new state of being.

The universe is made of energy. Energy cannot be destroyed, it only changes form.

Do you have evidence to substantiate any of that? Does your idea of "searching for knowledge" include making wild unsubstantiated allegations?

Moreover, if disasters are not "bad", then what are they? Neither good nor bad? Then why make them possible in the first place since it's clear that humanity considers them "bad"? Why not disallow the disasters, and thus skip this whole problem and confusion in the first place?

Energy cannot be destroyed, it only changes form.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is a common misconception of the thermodynamic law of conservation. In reality, it asserts that for X amount of energy destroyed within a system, said amount will be replaced with an equivalent to X, but it's a lot easier to explain it through saying energy cannot be destroyed or created and hence the misconception arises from a plethora of lazy teachers.

Well, at that point it's really semantics. When you say "said amount will be replaced with an equivalent to X" it's the same thing as saying "it will change forms (e.g. from kinetic energy to thermal energy).

The real problem is taking Scientific concepts out of their context to support nonsense.

If God is good enough to stop wide-scale hypothetical disasters/diseases why is he not good enough to stop the real ones (hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes etc)? To those who fall victim to the actual natural disasters, God's decision to stop the meteorites from hitting Australia was a bit irrelevant.

Before Adam and Eve sinned, there weren't diseases or hurricanes or suffering. We're pretty much paying for their mistake. As soon as they disobeyed God for the first time it took them from being completely one with him...they separated from him. That's what landed us in this "world". This world is what happens when you are partially separated from God.

On the Hell theory: this world can't be Hell because their are still "acts of God". Hell is the complete and total separation from God, just as Heaven is being totally connected, 100% with him. This world has just as much leeway as you want, without getting to one of the extremes (Heaven or Hell). This world is pretty much what you make it. You can chooses to be a freak and be as close as possible with God while on this earth, or you can be as close to this world as possible and be further and further away from Him.

Before Adam and Eve sinned, there weren't diseases or hurricanes or suffering. We're pretty much paying for their mistake. As soon as they disobeyed God for the first time it took them from being completely one with him...they separated from him. That's what landed us in this "world". This world is what happens when you are partially separated from God.

Not to disagree with you (as long as we're talking hypothetically), but don't you think the punishing of future generations for a past generation's mistake(s) is cruel at all?? And the fact that he would punishing us for what two people did hundreds of thousands of years ago--that we had no say in or choice in the matter--shows he's being more melicious than just. He might as well have let the meteorites strike Australia, after all we deserve it :rolleyes:.

Also, wasn't Jesus' crucifiction and resurection supposed to absolve what Adam and Eve did that long time ago?

Note: I apologize for using the term "God" on the bottom portion of my original post. I don't believe in an all-powerful god. Perhaps all the positivity we derive from life is the closest god-like energy to a "might god". For instance, every time I meditate I receive a surreal, warm sensation. This might be a sign of connection to the positive energy.

Just a thought:

It distresses me to hear Christians exclaim "Oh puh-raise dah lawd! He shall triumph the greatest of evils".

Why does he not stop evil all together?

Before Adam and Eve sinned, there weren't diseases or hurricanes or suffering. We're pretty much paying for their mistake. As soon as they disobeyed God for the first time it took them from being completely one with him...they separated from him. That's what landed us in this "world". This world is what happens when you are partially separated from God.

On the Hell theory: this world can't be Hell because their are still "acts of God". Hell is the complete and total separation from God, just as Heaven is being totally connected, 100% with him. This world has just as much leeway as you want, without getting to one of the extremes (Heaven or Hell). This world is pretty much what you make it. You can chooses to be a freak and be as close as possible with God while on this earth, or you can be as close to this world as possible and be further and further away from Him.

So this wonderful, loving, all powerful being decided to punish humanity on account of two people's actions?

Not very logical.