The question is dependent upon initial assumptions.

IF there's a God and a Hell, then God created Hell.

IF there's no God and no Hell, then God did *NOT* create Hell.

IF there's a God and he claims not to have created Hell, he's either lying, or not omnipotent.

.

To me, the answer is obvious.  Man created both God *AND* Hell.

For those of us who live in the real world there is no invisible all-powerful "friend in the sky." 

.

I got to the part where the guy tried the "angry atheist" bit and got bored.  The problem with religious types is that they really, truly, can't conceive of the basis for atheism.  That's because they really, truly know that the slightest doubt will cause their rationalizations to come cascading down.

He knows nobody read it all because you responded today instead of after the week it would have required.

BTW, was there an answer to the question in there somewhere? 

"And you should read stuff before commenting." Sounding a little peevish today...

It is wrong to be enslaved by our own ideas and pride

That cuts both way, you know. As your postings indicate.

Apparently he believes in the reality of nonexistent beings and the unreality of our own, existent beings by contrast.

"We spend much of the time playing God. Trapped in a egocentric universe."

Of course you're speaking for yourself. Others have moved beyond that personal problem, if they ever had it. You don't even have to jump through all the hoops of religion to achieve it either. 

I'll say one thing, Buffoo.  That link is a loooooooong read.

Anyhow, on to the point, I saw Dr. Kalomiros' opening paragraph.  I have made the same comment on these blogs:

" There is no doubt that we are living in the age of apostasy predicted for the last days. In practice, most people are atheists, although many of them theoretically still believe. Indifference and the spirit of this world prevail everywhere. "

I have a different explanation for that, of course.  But it's interesting that we, from very different perspectives, came to the same conclusions: most people function as non-believers.

"But why do men hate God? They hate Him not only because their deeds are dark while God is light, but also because they consider Him as a menace, as an imminent and eternal danger, as an adversary in court, as an opponent at law, as a public prosecutor and an eternal persecutor. To them, God is no more the almighty physician who came to save them from illness and death, but rather a cruel judge and a vengeful inquisitor. "

Well, let me try a different take.  It's along the lines of the old joke, "Lord, protect me from Your followers."

Setting aside for now the fact that I'm a non-believer, I'd say that it's the actions of people who claim to act in God's name that make God look like a menace, an adversary, a prosecutor, and a tormentor -- because the temperaments of some believers resemble these -- and they resemble them while claiming to speak for God.

Maybe it's not God people hate -- the problem is all these people putting words in God's mouth and giving Him a bad reputation.

When I was still a believer, it pained me to see some fellow believers depict God as such a vicious character.  This cautionary comment rings no less true now that it's being written by a non-believer.

We settled that early on, Robb.  No.

.

Hardliner, we function as non-believers because the world's set up that way.

.

I pose the following question:  how would physics change if it were proven conclusively God did not exist?  Answer:  not at all.  God is irrelevant to physics, and people solving physics problems don't *NEED* to consider divine intervention.

How would mathematics change?  Not at all.  Except for the lack of praying before exams.

How would economics change?  Depends on whether or not churches remained tax-exempt, I suppose.

Would morality change?  Only minutely, insofar as certain things previously thought immoral only because God Didn't Like Them would have to be re-evaluated.  Murder would still be wrong.  Theft, fraud, cruelty would still be wrong, with or without God.  Your actions wouldn't have to change, only the reasoning behind them (if any.)

I must admit that I have difficulty with the concept of hell.  I have a problem with the idea of a loving God being content with the knowledge that people of his own creation are being tortured every day throughout eternity.  Are discussions of hell to be interpreted in a literal sense?  If so, I can't imagine why God would create such a place. 

What I always come back to is that God is a God of love and a God of justice.  But his grace allows his sense of love and his sense of justice to co-exist.  So if there is a hell, and the Bible seems clear that there is, God's grace and God's mercy are much bigger than the flames of hell.  In the end, his grace and his mercy will prevail.  Hopefully that means he will spare as many as can possibly be forgiven, according to his boundless grace and his unstoppable mercy. 

I don't believe there is fire and brimstone in the traditional sense, but I do think the Anti-Christ is upon us....

I'm not here to defend hell.  I didn't invent it, and I believe that if God did, it was a big mistake.  Of course, I am not God.  I don't understand the mind of God, or God's ways.   In my belief system, I've got hell on the back burner (no pun intended).  I do believe that it is God's will that nobody should suffer eternal damnation.  He has made a way for everyone, including the most sinful of sinners to be spared.  Still, if a few are too stubborn to accept the free gift, would I send them to hell?  No.  And I don't think God would, even if he said he would. 

Remember, God threatened to punish people before in the Old Testament, and mere men persuaded him to show mercy instead of wrath.  So maybe if we all pray real hard, we can talk God out of the idea of hell too.  It sounds a little whacky, but it's worth a try.  They also laughed at me when, as a child of 4 or 5, I was discovered at family devotions praying that Satan would accept Jesus into his heart. 

Once again, in my mere mortal mind, hell is one hell of a bad idea.  I'm glad I'm not responsible for inventing it, and I'm glad I don't use hell to scare anybody into accepting Christ. 

BLT, your examples seem to indicate God could (and maybe does) learn a thing or two from Man.  (Of course, He could learn even more from Woman...)

You raise an interesting prospect, Random.  God may be completely different from the God I was raised to believe in.  I'm hoping that in some ways, God is much different, perhaps the opposite in many ways.   If I am to believe the fundamentalist preachers that my parents exposed me to at an early age, God is mean, judgemental and angry most of the time.  He is not a happy camper and he can't wait to catch us in an act of sin, especially the type of sin that is experienced as sensually pleasurable.  He's not the kind of God you'd want to invite to a party.