u/Aromatic_Response_73

When religious arguments try to justify eternal torment or annihilation, they often appeal to "free will" responses, but this is an obfuscation on value. Free will isn't meaningful onto itself (in a vacuum). At the most fundamental, the things that are truly valuable are experiential qualities such as love, joy, peace.

An argument can be made that free will somehow enriches those values by adding novelty, but a souls nature or capacity for freedom that can result in the anthithesis of what is fundamentally valuable, is not valuable and implies an extremely flawed design.

A more specific response to the "love requires the option of refusal" is that it is an equivocation:
It is equivocating living within a context of meaningful life (love, joy, peace) with being forced to do something. A reality including a souls nature being founded on love, joy and peace is not equivalent to them being forced to do something or lacking free will.

In order for a reality design to be ethically meaningful, it has to be founded on ethical principles that secure it.

If reality is grounded in true goodness​, ultimate reality including all souls should ultimately reflect it.

Freedom does not logically require the possibility of eternal alienation, as it only requires a meaningful range of available choices coupled with a meaningful nature.

In order for a reality design to be ethically meaningful, it has to be founded on ethical principles that secure it.

If reality is grounded in true goodness​, ultimate reality including all souls should ultimately reflect it.

Freedom does not logically require the possibility of eternal alienation, as it only requires a meaningful range of available choices coupled with a meaningful nature.

Good-A​ = love, joy, peace, freedom, compassion, opposition to needless suffering.

Good-B​ = whatever conforms to God's nature/will.

The issue is automatically assuming:

> ​Good-A = Good-B​

Example:

> ​God is good.

> ->Whatever God does is good.

If "God is good" means Good-B​, then its like saying:

> ​God = God.

To conclude God's actions are Good-A​, you need:

> Good-B → Good-A​

Applied to:

> Accept Jesus or Eternal Hell.

"God designed it -> it is good" proves only Good-B​, not Good-A​.

Freedom ≠ requiring eternal alienation.

If reality is grounded in Good-A​, ultimate reality including all souls should ultimately reflect it.

In order for a souls nature or capacity for freedom to not be arbitrary or non-meaningful, they must be founded on that which is meaningful.

Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful

Eternal Hell is not justified by Good-A​.

We often talk about free will as if being free means having every possible option available to us, the ability to choose good or evil, right or wrong, kindness or cruelty. But that might be too simplistic.

There are countless things we are incapable of choosing. I can't choose to breathe underwater without equipment. I can't choose to suddenly understand a language I've never learned. And I can't choose to genuinely desire something that is completely contrary to my nature simply by willing it.

Yet none of that necessarily means I lack free will.

Maybe freedom isn't about having access to every conceivable choice. Maybe it's about being able to act according to your own desires, reasons, values, and nature, without being externally forced to do otherwise.

Consider God. If God is perfectly good by nature, then perhaps God cannot choose evil. But we don't normally conclude from this that God therefore lacks free will. His inability to choose evil could simply be a consequence of who He is.

And if that's true, it raises an important question about human freedom.

Why should the ability to choose evil be considered necessary for free will at all?

Imagine a person who is completely free to make decisions, but whose nature makes them incapable of choosing evil. They can still deliberate, form intentions, pursue goals, reject one option in favor of another, and act according to what they genuinely want.

Would we really say that this person has no free will simply because one category of choices is unavailable to them?

If the answer is no, then free will never required the ability to choose evil in the first place.

Freedom may not mean having every possible choice. It may simply mean that the choices you do make genuinely come from you.

And perhaps that's a much more coherent understanding of free will, not the freedom to become anything whatsoever, but the freedom to act according to who you are.

My worldview: We see corruption on earth, that doesnt't mean we can apply locally learned earth based assumptions up the ladder onto the divine. You cant separate yourself from the divine foundation, because you are fundamentally of it, on earth we learn ideas of separation, contrast and distortion, but it does not apply to higher reality, "evil" choices are a highly specific set of earth based distorted state choices we might temporarily engage while we are veiled from our true divine self in this earthly context.

Also here is the main thing: Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful.

We have to bring light into the consideration that our deepest unveiled nature was created in and for alignment with god.

In order for a souls nature or capacity for freedom to not be arbitrary or non-meaningful, it must be founded on that which is meaningful.

"Meaningful" here relates to ethical language, which relates to the ethical goodness: In common ethical intersubjective usage, "good" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that are typically taken to approximate a shared center of value judgment, consisting of a coherent, mutually reinforcing pattern of love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity as lived experience and intention over time, rather than isolated states or short-term preferences.

We often talk about free will as if being free means having every possible option available to us, the ability to choose good or evil, right or wrong, kindness or cruelty. But that might be too simplistic.

There are countless things we are incapable of choosing. I can't choose to breathe underwater without equipment. I can't choose to suddenly understand a language I've never learned. And I can't choose to genuinely desire something that is completely contrary to my nature simply by willing it.

Yet none of that necessarily means I lack free will.

Maybe freedom isn't about having access to every conceivable choice. Maybe it's about being able to act according to your own desires, reasons, values, and nature, without being externally forced to do otherwise.

Consider God. If God is perfectly good by nature, then perhaps God cannot choose evil. But we don't normally conclude from this that God therefore lacks free will. His inability to choose evil could simply be a consequence of who He is.

And if that's true, it raises an important question about human freedom.

Why should the ability to choose evil be considered necessary for free will at all?

Imagine a person who is completely free to make decisions, but whose nature makes them incapable of choosing evil. They can still deliberate, form intentions, pursue goals, reject one option in favor of another, and act according to what they genuinely want.

Would we really say that this person has no free will simply because one category of choices is unavailable to them?

If the answer is no, then free will never required the ability to choose evil in the first place.

Freedom may not mean having every possible choice. It may simply mean that the choices you do make genuinely come from you.

And perhaps that's a much more coherent understanding of free will, not the freedom to become anything whatsoever, but the freedom to act according to who you are.

My worldview: We see corruption on earth, that doesnt't mean we can apply locally learned earth based assumptions up the ladder onto the divine. You cant separate yourself from the divine foundation, because you are fundamentally of it, on earth we learn ideas of separation, contrast and distortion, but it does not apply to higher reality, "evil" choices are a highly specific set of earth based distorted state choices we might temporarily engage while we are veiled from our true divine self in this earthly context.

Also here is the main thing: Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful.

We have to bring light into the consideration that our deepest unveiled nature was created in and for alignment with god.

In order for a souls nature or capacity for freedom to not be arbitrary or non-meaningful, it must be founded on that which is meaningful.

"Meaningful" here relates to ethical language, which relates to the ethical goodness: In common ethical intersubjective usage, "good" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that are typically taken to approximate a shared center of value judgment, consisting of a coherent, mutually reinforcing pattern of love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity as lived experience and intention over time, rather than isolated states or short-term preferences.

Christian theology is very bad at explaining earthly life's meaning or justifying ideas of eternal torment

Proposition: creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful

There is no sophisticated reasoning about e.g. fundamental principles or values

There is a common unwillingnes among christians to reason about this issue with pure intent, so I will ask specifically for that here.

Free will exists in heaven, and many christians believe unborn fetuses go there, there is a lack of explanation for why earth is necessary, and the suggestion that an eternal hell exists in a system created by an all loving creator is pathetic, all the responses appeal to vague terms with positive cannotations such as "free will" but no sophisticated reasoning about e.g. fundamental principles or values, grow up.

There is a common unwillingnes among christians to reason about this issue with pure intent, so I will ask specifically for that here.

Free will exists in heaven, and many christians believe unborn fetuses go there, there is a lack of explanation for why earth is necessary, and the suggestion that an eternal hell exists in a system created by an all loving creator is pathetic, all the responses appeal to vague terms with positive cannotations such as "free will" but no sophisticated reasoning about e.g. fundamental principles or values, grow up.

In common ethical intersubjective usage, "good" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that are typically taken to approximate a shared center of value judgement, consisting of a coherent, mutually reinforcing pattern of love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity as lived experience and intention over time, rather than isolated states or short-term preferences. Edit: by value judgement, I mean that which we fundamentally hold most intuitively valuable.

Some Christians define goodness in relation to God. On this view, "good" means whatever conforms to God's nature or will.

The term "good" does not have a universally recognised (useful in ethical discussion) meaning apart from either usefulness for some purpose or the ordinary ethical meaning. Refraining from those in an **ethical discussion** renders the word empty from its normal ethical content.

The problem arises when these two meanings are treated as interchangeable.

If "God is good" means only that God conforms to God's own nature, then the statement is true by definition. It means something like:

God is as God is.

But that does not automatically show that God is good in the ordinary ethical sense of being loving, healing, peaceful, compassionate, or opposed to needless suffering.

The problem is ordinary ethical goodness and the christian goodness can be in conflict eg. ideas of reality design like "Accept Jesus or suffer forever". If someone proposes that ordinary ethical goodness is just a conflictory subset of the christian good, then we cannot say that the design of reality is in proper alignment with ordinary ethical goodness, and therefore not good in the ordinary ethical sense.

The ordinary ethical meaning of good should not be dismissed as mere subjectivism. It may very well point metaphysically toward a foundational form of goodness, even if human beings grasp it imperfectly.

In common ethical intersubjective usage, "good" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that are typically taken to approximate a shared center of value judgment, consisting of a coherent, mutually reinforcing pattern of love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity as lived experience and intention over time, rather than isolated states or short-term preferences.

Some Christians define goodness in relation to God. On this view, "good" means whatever conforms to God's nature or will.

The term "good" does not have a universally recognised (useful in ethical discussion) meaning apart from either usefulness for some purpose or the ordinary ethical meaning. Refraining from those in an **ethical discussion** renders the word empty from its normal ethical content.

The problem arises when these two meanings are treated as interchangeable.

If "God is good" means only that God conforms to God's own nature, then the statement is true by definition. It means something like:

God is as God is.

But that does not automatically show that God is good in the ordinary ethical sense of being loving, healing, peaceful, compassionate, or opposed to needless suffering.

The problem is ordinary ethical goodness and the christian goodness can be in conflict eg. ideas of reality design like "Accept Jesus or suffer forever". If someone proposes that ordinary ethical goodness is just a conflictory subset of the christian good, then we cannot say that the design of reality is in proper alignment with ordinary ethical goodness, and therefore not good in the ordinary ethical sense.

The ordinary ethical meaning of good should not be dismissed as mere subjectivism. It may very well point metaphysically toward a foundational form of goodness, even if human beings grasp it imperfectly.

Christian theology supposes that life is some sort of test What test? Whether you are good or bad depends A) on your nature and B) the state of constraints from which you act, im not denying free will or saying that free choices are "caused" by something, but that they come from the nature of the one who is choosing (or the different constraints which apply to you in the earth system), which are created by god.

There also cannot be universal learning applied to all lives on earth because the fact that some of the only last a very short of time, and christian theology supposes that we all only get one life.

Clearly the earth system and the state from which we act here is not the optimal for us to thrive in that which is meaningful, so we cant really apply earthly meaning onto the afterlife.

Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful

My worldview is that immorality happens because we arent always acting from our true divine self due to varying reasons which apply in the constrained earth experience (which dont apply higher up), and that we are here to evolve our quality of intention and integrate experience.

Christian theology supposes that life is some sort of test What test? Whether you are good or bad depends A) on your nature and B) the state of constraints from which you act, im not denying free will or saying that free choices are "caused" by something, but that they come from the nature of the one who is choosing (or the different constraints which apply to you in the earth system), which are created by god.

There also cannot be universal learning applied to all lives on earth because the fact that some of the only last a very short of time, and christian theology supposes that we all only get one life.

Clearly the earth system and the state from which we act here is not the optimal for us to thrive in that which is meaningful, so we cant really apply earthly meaning onto the afterlife.

Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful

My worldview is that immorality happens because we arent always acting from our true divine self due to varying reasons which apply in the constrained earth experience (which dont apply higher up), and that we are here to evolve our quality of intention and integrate experience.

Christian theology supposes that life is some sort of test What test? Whether you are good or bad depends A) on your nature and B) the state of constraints from which you act, im not denying free will or saying that free choices are "caused" by something, but that they come from the nature of the one who is choosing (or the different constraints which apply to you in the earth system), which are created by god.

There also cannot be universal learning applied to all lives on earth because the fact that some of the only last a very short of time, and christian theology supposes that we all only get one life.

Clearly the earth system and the state from which we act here is not the optimal for us to thrive in that which is meaningful, so we cant really apply earthly meaning onto the afterlife.

Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful

My worldview is that immorality happens because we arent always acting from our true divine self due to varying reasons which apply in the constrained earth experience (which dont apply higher up), and that we are here to evolve our quality of intention and integrate experience.

Christian theology supposes that life is some sort of test What test? Whether you are good or bad depends A) on your nature and B) the state of constraints from which you act, im not denying free will or saying that free choices are "caused" by something, but that they come from the nature of the one who is choosing (or the different constraints which apply to you in the earth system), which are created by god.

There also cannot be universal learning applied to all lives on earth because the fact that some of the only last a very short of time, and christian theology supposes that we all only get one life.

Clearly the earth system and the state from which we act here is not the optimal for us to thrive in that which is meaningful, so we cant really apply earthly meaning onto the afterlife.

Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful

My worldview is that immorality happens because we arent always acting from our true divine self due to varying reasons which apply in the constrained earth experience (which dont apply higher up), and that we are here to evolve our quality of intention and integrate experience.

Reality is not some ship adrift out at sea ready to sink unattended, or that it needs to be saved, those ideas reflect earth based thinking.

We see corruption on earth, that doesnt't mean we can apply locally learned earth based assumptions up the ladder onto the divine. You cant separate yourself from the foundation, because you are fundamentally of it, on earth we learn ideas of separation, contrast and distortion, but it does not apply to higher reality, "evil" choices are a highly specific set of earth based distorted state choices we might temporarily engage.

Reality is not some ship adrift out at sea ready to sink unattended, or that it needs to be saved, those ideas reflect earth based thinking.

We see corruption on earth, that doesnt't mean we can apply locally learned earth based assumptions up the ladder onto the divine. You cant separate yourself from the foundation, because you are fundamentally of it, on earth we learn ideas of separation, contrast and distortion, but it does not apply to higher reality, "evil" choices are a highly specific set of earth based distorted state choices we might temporarily engage.

Reality is not some ship adrift out at sea ready to sink unattended, or that it needs to be saved, those ideas reflect earth based thinking.

We see corruption on earth, that doesnt't mean we can apply locally learned earth based assumptions up the ladder onto the divine. You cant separate yourself from the foundation, because you are fundamentally of it, on earth we learn ideas of separation, contrast and distortion, but it does not apply to higher reality, "evil" choices are a highly specific set of earth based distorted state choices we might temporarily engage.

Good-A = love, joy, peace, freedom, compassion, opposition to needless suffering.

Good-B = whatever conforms to God's nature/will.

The issue is assuming:

> Good-A = Good-B

Example:

> God is good. > ->Whatever God does is good.

If "God is good" = Good-B, then:

> God = God.

To conclude God's actions are Good-A, you need:

> Good-B → Good-A

Applied to:

> Accept Jesus or Eternal Hell.

"God designed it -> it is good" proves only Good-B, not Good-A.

If reality is grounded in Good-A, ultimate reality including all souls should ultimately reflect it.

In order for a souls nature or capacity for freedom to not be arbitrary or non-meaningful, they must be founded on that which is meaningful.

Freedom ≠ requiring eternal alienation.

Eternal Hell is not justified by Good-A, and appealing only to Good-B does not establish that it is.

Good-A = love, joy, peace, freedom, compassion, opposition to needless suffering.

Good-B = whatever conforms to God's nature/will.

The issue is assuming:

> Good-A = Good-B

Example:

> God is good. > ->Whatever God does is good.

If "God is good" = Good-B, then:

> God = God.

To conclude God's actions are Good-A, you need:

> Good-B → Good-A

Applied to:

> Accept Jesus or Eternal Hell.

"God designed it -> it is good" proves only Good-B, not Good-A.

If reality is grounded in Good-A, ultimate reality including all souls should ultimately reflect it.

In order for a souls nature or capacity for freedom to not be arbitrary or non-meaningful, they must be founded on that which is meaningful.

Freedom ≠ requiring eternal alienation.

Eternal Hell is not justified by Good-A, and appealing only to Good-B does not establish that it is.