Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
An Argument for Annihilationism
-
An Argument for Annihilationism
P1 God is omnipresent
P2 Hell is separation from God
P3 If X exists, then X has to be somewhere
P4 If X is somewhere, then X is not separate from God
C1 Therefore, if X exists, then X is not separate from God (3,4 MP)
C2 Therefore, if X is in hell, then X does not exist (2, C1)
If hell is a place, and if God is omnipresent, then God must be present in hell. Thus, anything that exists in hell—as defined as a place—must not be separate from God. In other words, anything that is separate from God in hell must not exist.
The Catholic dogma states that “the chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God.” If the chief and ultimate punishment in hell is separation from God, then the chief and ultimate punishment in hell could be argued is annihilation.
With this in mind, it would be more accurate to define hell not as a place but rather as a state. This definition is consistent with other doctrines which describe hell as involving punishment and torture, as hell involves your soul being in the state of punishment leading to annihilation. Hell would then characterize the position of existence that you are in, rather than an external environment that you are in. Hell could be read to be the term for the punishment itself. Hell being the sentence and the experience. One can imagine the immaterial soul of the damned experiencing a variety of internal punishments as if they were external until annihilation. Relevantly similar to the kind of pain one experiences when receiving harmful words from a loved one.
It is often thought that hell, being an eternal punishment, is evidence against the all-loving nature of God. This argument circumvents this issue, as the punishment itself would be eternal but not eternally experienced by those annihilated. A finite punishment would be given proportional to the sins of the damned until annihilation. One objection could be that that annihilation is worse of a punishment than eternal suffering; however, arguably, it would be better to be annihilated than to be under eternal and conscious punishment. Through annihilation, one does not constantly experience the torment of being separated from God, nor are they aware of their failings which led them to be in absolute Godlessness and void of goodness. If the final termination of hell for an individual is annihilation, these sentiments and experiences as described above may heavily weigh upon one’s soul, thus deepening and worsening their finite torture. However, if this is the case, then the annihilation of the suffering soul may be the actions of an all-loving God as the proper and ultimate judge, acting with proper and ultimate mercy by relieving the sinner of the agony that is their reality. Therefore, annihilation would be an appropriate chief punishment that sidesteps the issue of disproportionality and aligns with the Christian view of an all-loving God.
-
6 Replies
-
P1 God is omnipresent
P2 Hell is separation from God
P3 If X exists, then X has to be somewhere
P4 If X is somewhere, then X is not separate from God
C1 Therefore, if X exists, then X is not separate from God (3,4 MP)
C2 Therefore, if X is in hell, then X does not exist (2, C1)
“If hell is a place, and if God is omnipresent, then God must be present in hell. Thus, anything that exists in hell—as defined as a place—must not be separate from God. In other words, anything that is separate from God in hell must not exist.” This is an interesting view on describing hell, but it only seems to work if one defines evil or sin as a privation of good. Many would object to that idea though. Instead of diving further into definitions of sin, I want to object to premise 4. I would conversely claim that hell is a place and not simply a state. This is shown explicitly in the Apostles Creed when it says Jesus “descended into hell on the third day he rose again from the dead”. The Catechism also highlights that after Jesus died and went to Hades (hell) he brought good tidings to the souls there. This is only one example that quite clearly shows that hell necessarily must be a place.
Just because God is omnipresent and hell is the separation from God does not mean that annihilation is the only way to describe hell. There are various ways in which people have tried to reconcile this idea. God may be terribly present in another sense in hell. Those in hell are not hidden from God or unknown. Hell in relation to God should not be viewed as kryptonite for Superman is. All reality continues to say, “In Him, we live and move and have our being.” As it is on earth, in hell no one can hide from the Lord or escape the terrible countenance of his anger. So God’s power can be present in hell as the one who sustains our being the one who enforces justice and the one who maintains suffering. He can be present in all the ways men do not want him to be present and none of the ways that believers enjoy his presence.
-
I have several issues in premise 2 that I would like to object to. Premise 2 states that Hell is a separation from God. From reading the Bible, I feel as though there are different takes on what it means to be Separated from God. Separation from God, to me seems as if it means that God is not present when sinners are in hell. I feel as though God is still present in hell but with his wrath. Revelations states this as such “He also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”Revelation (14:10-11)Since it is said that it is in the presence of God’s wrath and Holy angels and the Lamb, means that God is present in Hell. I feel as though God’s warm nature is not present in hell but He Himself is present since it shows his wrath among sinners.
Another point of contention is God’s separation from Hell meant that he was not omniscient. If God has the property of P(omniscience) then to have the Property of P meant that you are God. I feel as though being omniscience is in his nature so it would be impossible for him to not be in the presence of sinners. It seems contradictory to say that God is separated from Hell because it counteracts his nature of omniscience. It seems we have to trains of thought in regards to heaven and hell. Heaven is a place where we feel God’s love and warmth. Hell is a place where have the consequence of sinning thereby having God’s wrath. God is in two places as one but in separate conditions.
-
Although this idea of hell is more comforting to consider I think it is our duty as Christians to accept some of the harsher realities present in the Bible and I believe that this is an attempt to diminish the impact of those harsh realities. Although your argument is valid I do not find it sound since there seems to be a lack of explanation given to what the Bible means when it says that “Hell is separation from God”.
There are multiple verses that talk about the existence of Hell and refer to it as being created by God. Hebrews 1:3 says that God, through Jesus, holds up everything in the universe, implying that God has created everything including Hell. Hell is also described as eternal punishment and consequence, something which could not be annihilation since it implies a continued state of punishment.
I disagree that God will not be present in Hell and believe that the separation described in the Bible is a separation from the personal presence of God. That personal presence includes the goodness, beauty, and mercy of God. God will still be present in Hell in the form of his righteous justice and judgment. Revelation 14:10 also refers to the torments of hell in the presence of the Lamb. It does not say that God or Jesus or the Lamb is physically present in Hell but it does mention that they can see it.
Another reason to not believe the annihilation argument is the eternal nature of the soul. Nowhere in Scripture does death signify extinction; physical death is described as departure into another mode of being. When we try and downplay the badness of hell we end up also downplaying the sacrifice of Jesus, God’s one and only son. His sacrifice was eternal to escape from eternal punishment.
-
While I do understand the basis of your argument I do not believe it is a successful one. My main objection is to premise 4 of the argument made where you say “If X is somewhere, then X is not separate from God”. I do not believe the statements that “God is omnipresent” and that “hell is separation from God” to be inconsistent with each other. This is because one could interpret this separation not as it being impossible for God to be present in hell, but rather that those in hell can no longer experience God. The bible gives no indication that God cannot be present in hell. In fact it is said that after dying on the cross, Jesus himself opened the gates of hell. Therefore, I would argue that being separated from God means that those in hell no longer have any opportunity to access God in any way again, not that God cannot be present there. In addition, I would also argue that based on descriptions of eternal suffering in hell given in the bible, it would seem unlikely that hell would simply mean annihilation. It seems that it does refer to a place where people will suffer. I do agree with the argument that annihilation may be more in line with the view of an all-loving God because it does seem that it would be better to be annihilated than to experience eternal torment. However, I wonder if this view would be inconsistent with the fact that God is perfectly just. Annihilation would seem to be somewhat of an easy way out at least for certain crimes, and therefore I would still argue that hell refers to eternal torment and pain rather than just annihilation.
-
I think the problems with Hell extend far beyond the ontic issue raised in the opening post. It has been argued that the very knowledge of Hell held by those in the afterlife would render Heaven (a place of eternal bliss) impossible. How could one be happy, knowing that many were suffering agonies elsewhere and for all eternity? In addition to this, a God who cannot abide evil and sin sustains evil and sin in being (by sustaining Hell) rather than removing sin and evil from reality and forever?
-
You said, “How could one be happy, knowing that many were suffering agonies elsewhere and for all eternity?”
That problem perhaps becomes even more significant for those who accept the Bible, for many verses in the Bible tell us to love others, even as we love ourselves. Is one to believe incongruously that this overarching admonition no longer holds for those in heaven?
If we love someone, our lives are inextricably linked to theirs such that their fate affects ours, e.g., if they rejoice, we rejoice, but if they suffer, we suffer.
This problem is one of the many arguments some (e.g., Thomas Talbott in his book The Inescapable Love of God) have suggested as support for Universalism.
Premise 1: If not all go to heaven, heaven would not be a place of eternal bliss.
Premise 2: Heaven is a place of eternal bliss. (Revelation 21:4)
Conclusion: All go to heaven.
-
Log in to reply.