God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (redo)

I just wanna say real quick before things get heated that I've enjoyed this debate and I'd be happy to do it again in the future. We seem to be entering what has occurred to me to be the usually final stage in any debate – the ships in the night stage. As the arguments intensify, the distinctions become more nuanced and the chances of really understanding each other decrease. This is where it appears we both are at. I do not feel that you have understood my objections and you do not feel I have understood yours. But I must press on for this final argument – I'll do my best. Before I get to my arguments, let's talk about ‘external evidence'. I concur that it is strange to call for evidence in a theology debate, but this call does have a point. My argument is that you have simply invented a definition for love which happens to work very well with your theodicy. This is exactly what I was worried about with argument 1a from the very top of the debate (oh so long ago) and this is an ad hoc argument. My worries about the use of ad hoc argumentation are explained above. Now, what seems to be your response is that we are discussing Christianity and so Christianity is your evidence. My problem with this response is you have not, at any point given me anything in Christianity that explicitly says "love is meant to be reciprocated" where as I have explained that God is often called ‘the father' indicating a type of love very different from the one you think he possesses. 1) What kind of love does God have? You accuse me (correctly) of dropping your argument concerning the effect of unrequited love. This was not some large blunder on my part, but was instead a well-thought out decision. As I see it, if I am right in defining God's love as paternal, then this whole argument is irrelevant. If God is the father, he would do what is best for us regardless of if we liked it or not. This could include removing my freedom to "throw my grandmother's treats into the trash" i.e. spurn Gods love. He could just make us love him and accept him and carry about our merry way. What happens to us if we reject God's freely-given love is irrelevant until we have determined that God would even give us the opportunity to reject him. So, here's where I stand. I do not see any reason to think that God's love works the way you describe. This is where evidence is needed because when people have two different interpretations of the world, evidence and reason are the only ways to settle the dispute. Since you essentially have nothing supporting your arbitrary definition of love, I can't go with you on this point. 2) Given that you rest of your debate has been so good, your response on here is unfortunate. First, I want to take a moment to discuss my red herring. I just want to bask a little in totally refuting your claim that "There is no causation between religion/atheism and intelligence" with not one, but TWO independent studies that suggest something completely different…. Ahh, that feels good. Ok, now you claim that I am arguing here that more reason and logic endowed in human beings would make no one reject God and that God should have created us this way. I want to point out AGAIN, that I merely used that as an example of a way that "freedom to reject" could exist without actual rejection. For your convenience, here are some quotes from me, telling you that I am not arguing what you think I'm arguing: Round 2: "Why can't God create a world in which everyone is free, yet everyone freely accepts God? … unless you can demonstrate that freedom and complete acceptance of God are, by necessity, in contradiction, the response cannot fly" Round 3: "I am suggesting that it is not logically contradictory that everyone could have "freedom to reject" but no one would choose it … Again, this argument is important because if a world where freedom to reject did not imply actual rejection could exist, then a morally perfect God would not create any other world." Round 4: "additionally, I wasn't even really trying to say that God could make us smarter to make us accept him more. What I am saying fundamentally is that it is not logically impossible that we could have "freedom to reject" and not have actual rejection. It MUST be the case that God could not create a world where we have all the advantages of unforced love without anyone going to Hell or your theodicy fails and I do not see any answer to this point coming from you." In every single round I have stated that my argument is that the two concepts are not logically contradictory and in every single round I have stated that without logical contradiction, your theodicy fails. You have had 3 rounds since I made this claim to answer it and you have failed 3 times. I should win on this point alone and on your fundamental failure to understand my argument and then you absurd attempt to tell me what I argued. If a world can exist where everyone has freedom to accept God and everyone does it, then a morally perfect God should do exactly that. According to your own ah hoc theodicy, he has not done this. This either means that God is not morally perfect, or there is no hell. If there can be a KO punch in this debate, I think this argument and the corresponding lack of refutation is it. CONCLUSION: My opponent failed to demonstrate that God's love works the way he describes. This demonstration is necessary because we disagree fundamentally on this topic and without it, I cannot accept his love-as-reciprocation idea. Secondly, and most easily, my opponent failed to understand that I challenged him on 3 separate occasions to demonstrate that "freedom to reject" necessitates actual rejection and 3 times he completely failed to demonstrate this. He thus implicitly concedes this argument and I win on that alone. If he responds in this last speech it's too late. He's had his turn and squandered it. Thanks for the debate, it's been fun.