Problem of Hell Thought Experiments

Fact 1: There exist religions who propose that some individuals are consciously subjected to torment and agony after death.
Fact 2: Some of these religions claim that this torment is eternal (which either means going on for an infinate amount of linear or time, or happening in a moment of time that is frozen---depending on your whichever interpretation of eternity)
Fact 3: There is no empirical evidence for such things being objectively true, and what logical inferences used to reach such conclusions are controversial at best, and ludicrous at worst.

Question 1: Why should I believe any religion that makes such claims, given fact 3. What basis would I have?

(Counter to predicted answer): Faith is insufficent as a reasonable answer to this question. One can have faith in anything. The fact that you 'want' something to be true, or even believe that it is true, does not make it objectively true/fact. The only thing faith makes 'true' is one's own subjective interpretation/perspective of the world, but these religions are not making claims about subjective interpretations, they are making claims about objective facts. Faith is not a valid inference for determining facts, because it is possible for faith to imply a falsehood. Nor is faith statistically likely to accurately predict facts, so for both reasons it is unreliable---and irrelevant.

Question 2: Even if I did have a logical reason to believe such claims, how would I square the numerous ethical problems that would then arise?

(Explanatory thoughts on this): Surely subjecting any conscious being to torment raises ethical problems that need resolving and/or justifying. Where is the justification for subjecting a being to torment after it is dead, and hence has no means of atoning for any unethical conduct they may have made in life? Furthermore, if the justification is in the offending 'soul' understanding their 'sin' and hence finding internal repentance, and maybe thus a small measure of redemption (that I would understand), then why does the torment have to be eternal? It does not take eternity just to realise you were wrong and desire atonement, so surely denying them the opportunity to truly atone is a direct contradiction to their free will---unless of course their free will is stripped from them after their death, but that then doesn't make sense, as how can you be a conscious, thinking being (and hence aware of the torment) without free will which is integral to the very definition of what it means to be a conscious thinking being? If free will and hence consciousness is non-existent in death, what then is the purpose hell?

Question 3 (Somewhat rhetorical): Whether Hell exists or not, what happens to an individual who believes that it does?

(Explanatory thoughts on this): Moreover, what becomes of their behaviour? It is impossible to fear that which you believe does not exist, ergo, if you fear going to hell, then a small part of you must believe it exists (or could exist). Contrapositive to this, it is impossible to believe in something you think 'worthy' of fear, and not fear it (of course for many people the justification of fear is somewhat deranged i.e. phobics and/or daredevils (leading them to fear things which aren't dangerous, or not fear things which clearly are) but that is neither here nor there---the point still stands). Ergo, if you truly believe in hell, then by definition you must live in fear. If you live in fear, that is going to affect your behaviour...probably negatively. Phobics can simply avoid the things which make them afraid, but death is a certainty, and something that could happen at any moment of our lives, so if you are afraid of going to hell, that must be something which is with you every moment of every day for your entire life---not a nice thought. Imagine for example that you are arachnophobic (fear of spiders), this is not a problem if you simply avoid spiders, but imagine being locked in a room full of them, and then the key thrown away.

My subjective opinions: Whoever came up with the idea of eternal torment after death was an evil genius. Fear is a remarkably powerful weapon. Hell is a powerful idea, capable of controlling anyone who believes in it. I have absolutely no problem with religions which convey virtues like compassion, fortitude, honesty and love, and which ask these virtues to be pursued freely...but don't tell me it is a free choice when you then tell people that if they don't do this then they will suffer forever, and fill their minds with descriptions of eternal torment, fire and brimstone. That is not free will, that is holding a gun to somebody's head and saying that if they don't pay what they owe you you'll shoot them. Even if they DO owe you, it's still wrong. Therefore, I have no logical, scienfic OR moral reason to convert to any religion in which eternal hell is a doctrine.

Before you were born could you imagine a world like this could be real?

No because I was not conscious, now I am. Also, the fact that eternal hell is unimaginable, does not make it real---or ethical, quite the reverse in fact.

Before you were born could you imagine a world like this could be real?

Obviously no, this reinforcing the position that things that don't exist are unable to adhere to consciousness/intelligence/awareness.

Well how do you know death isn't just like birth? Perhaps it's not that you didn't exist before birth but you just don't remember existing, is this possible?

I have always considered the idea that its possible that the world we live in now, is what many refer to as Hell.. And to get out, we must do certain acts required by a higher power. Call them a God, a Keeper, or whatever. If we can pass their requirements, we can then go on to the next plain of existence.

Well how do you know death isn't just like birth? Perhaps it's not that you didn't exist before birth but you just don't remember existing, is this possible?

Anything is possible "so to speak" however evidence suggests that neonates are born with the most basic of cognitive mental ability, I am unaware if neurologist have carried out experiments in order to analyze the brain activity of a fetus whilst still in it's mothers womb, but I couldn't imagine there would be to much going on. In a sense one could state the technically I did exist before the actual time of birth, some may argue we exist at the time of conception, however a single celled embryo with a nucleus is not a human being. Perhaps once the cerebral cortex develops it could be considered that the fetus is equipped to be an individual sentient being?

I think it's apparent that death isn't just like birth, in fact it is objectively observable that they sit at complete opposite ends of the scale, birth is the beginning of life as a human being, whereas death is the end.

Some people are born into torment they are thirsty but there is nothing to drink they are hungry but they are malnurished I'm sure you've seen some of these people on tv. While others are born into lives with everything. I think that this example can be equated to Heaven and Hell, would you agree?

Some people are born into torment they are thirsty but there is nothing to drink they are hungry but they are malnurished I'm sure you've seen some of these people on tv. While others are born into lives with everything. I think that this example can be equated to Heaven and Hell, would you agree?

In that sense, yes I do agree. Hell on earth and living in heaven are certainly a reality for some individuals, for the rest of us I guess we can either live in hope or be greatful for what we do have, I prefer the latter of the two.

I also would prefer the latter, my point is this if it can happen with birth here on earth, then why would it be so improbable that death is like birth, and when we die we'll forget this life and and start a new begining where it will either be torment or amazingly grand?
When thinking about a place like hell you have to relize that nobody here has ever been there. What are some of the worst things that we can imagine if we wanted to describe a really bad place to someone else? Personally I hate getting burnt and most people would agree that the pain that comes along with fire is one of the worst. Being on the verge of death from dehydration also a very unplesant place to be. If hell exists I'm sure it is not like the people have said it to be because when trying to describe it, they were just giving examples of the worst human experiences here on earth.

My subjective opinions:

You should have made that your first sentence in the OP.

I have always considered the idea that its possible that the world we live in now, is what many refer to as Hell.. And to get out, we must do certain acts required by a higher power. Call them a God, a Keeper, or whatever. If we can pass their requirements, we can then go on to the next plain of existence.

That is very largely true.
The problem has become that "they" no longer have requirements for salvation.
The intent now is merely slow death and extinction (reduce the population via selected races).

I also would prefer the latter, my point is this if it can happen with birth here on earth, then why would , and when we die we'll forget this life and and start a new begining where it will either be torment or amazingly grand?
When thinking about a place like hell you have to relize that nobody here has ever been there. What are some of the worst things that we can imagine if we wanted to describe a really bad place to someone else? Personally I hate getting burnt and most people would agree that the pain that comes along with fire is one of the worst. Being on the verge of death from dehydration also a very unplesant place to be. If hell exists I'm sure it is not like the people have said it to be because when trying to describe it, they were just giving examples of the worst human experiences here on earth.

I'm sure we can all envision some type of hell in our minds, our minds are great at that sort of thing. Before we discuss probability we must ask ourselves what the probable possibilities are based on, to ask why would it be so improbable that death is like birth, perhaps you may ask, what makes it a possibility in the first place?
Yes, we can imagine hell, I can imagine invisible fire breathing dragons, this how ever gives me no reason to suggest it even remotely plausable. To compare what we experience on earth to what you believe one may experience after death, is not relevant, for the simple fact that we experience earth in a physical state, our bodies are no long active once we die, therefore you need to be able prove that consciousness/intelligence can exist without a brain.

I'm sure we can all envision some type of hell in our minds, our minds are great at that sort of thing. Before we discuss probability we must ask ourselves what the probable possibilities are based on, to ask why would it be so improbable that death is like birth, perhaps you may ask, what makes it a possibility in the first place?
Yes, we can imagine hell, I can imagine invisible fire breathing dragons, this how ever gives me no reason to suggest it even remotely plausable. To compare what we experience on earth to what you believe one may experience after death, is not relevant, for the simple fact that we experience earth in a physical state, our bodies are no long active once we die, therefore you need to be able prove that consciousness/intelligence can exist without a brain.

Envision maybe, describe accurately probably not.

How is it not relevant to compare are life on earth to what may be experienced after death? You formed a brain in the womb how do you know that you won't form the equivalent after death? Of course this is not testable but it is a rational idea based on empirical evidence experienced in this plane of existence.

I'm sure we can all envision some type of hell in our minds, our minds are great at that sort of thing. Before we discuss probability we must ask ourselves what the probable possibilities are based on, to ask why would it be so improbable that death is like birth, perhaps you may ask, what makes it a possibility in the first place?
Yes, we can imagine hell, I can imagine invisible fire breathing dragons, this how ever gives me no reason to suggest it even remotely plausable. To compare what we experience on earth to what you believe one may experience after death, is not relevant, for the simple fact that we experience earth in a physical state, our bodies are no long active once we die, therefore you need to be able prove that consciousness/intelligence can exist without a brain.

Envision maybe, describe accurately probably not.

How is it not relevant to compare are life on earth to what may be experienced after death? You formed a brain in the womb how do you know that you won't form the equivalent after death? Of course this is not testable but it is a rational idea based on empirical evidence experienced in this plane of existence.

Well the answer to me appears to be self evident, once the body dies, it decomposes (brain included), during pregnancy beings evolve from an embryo to an infant. As you have pointed out yourself, your basing your argument on what we experience during this plane of existence, you are taking an enormous leap of faith by assuming A) death is comparative to what we experience when where alive B)There is a parallel Universe which we are re-born into after we die, which is not observable while we are living C) Intelligence experienced by conscious beings can survive after death D) We are being judged while being alive and we will be either punished or rewarded depending on which God if any God we chose to worship and abide by.

I'm sure we can all envision some type of hell in our minds, our minds are great at that sort of thing. Before we discuss probability we must ask ourselves what the probable possibilities are based on, to ask why would it be so improbable that death is like birth, perhaps you may ask, what makes it a possibility in the first place?
Yes, we can imagine hell, I can imagine invisible fire breathing dragons, this how ever gives me no reason to suggest it even remotely plausable. To compare what we experience on earth to what you believe one may experience after death, is not relevant, for the simple fact that we experience earth in a physical state, our bodies are no long active once we die, therefore you need to be able prove that consciousness/intelligence can exist without a brain.

Envision maybe, describe accurately probably not.

How is it not relevant to compare are life on earth to what may be experienced after death? You formed a brain in the womb how do you know that you won't form the equivalent after death? Of course this is not testable but it is a rational idea based on empirical evidence experienced in this plane of existence.

Well the answer to me appears to be self evident, once the body dies, it decomposes (brain included), during pregnancy beings evolve from an embryo to an infant. As you have pointed out yourself, your basing your argument on what we experience during this plane of existence, you are taking an enormous leap of faith by assuming A) death is comparative to what we experience when where alive B)There is a parallel Universe which we are re-born into after we die, which is not observable while we are living C) Intelligence experienced by conscious beings can survive after death D) We are being judged while being alive and we will be either punished or rewarded depending on which God if any God we chose to worship and abide by.

A) I believe it is just as much a leap of faith to believe that a person only has one chance at consciousness/intelligence. B) This plane of existence is not visible to the unborn.
C) I said previously that it is more likely after death that you will not remember this plain of existence because your memory bank/brain is gone.
D) If you plant apple trees then apple trees will grow. If you plant corn then corn will grow. I don't think of it as being judged just succumbing to justice.