God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist

Sorry for missing the argument, again, I was out of town a few days for Christmas. If you would like to re-create the debate, I'm game. We can re-post exactly what we have if you just want to make round 3. Otherwise, your response is generally sound, with the exception of several ambiguities which stem from the vagueness of your original statement. Also, you draw at least once from an argument that I did not make, that Hell is the absence of God. That understanding of course comes from St. Augustine, but the details of our understanding of that have evolved over time. Lacking a "Knowledge of God" is not strictly the same thing as an "absence of God." It isn't simply a matter of God choosing to fill an extra space or give a little extra grace, but of forcing oneself onto another person. Taking it point by point... To my claim that "Love" is "Romantic," and therefore reciprical, you assert: >1a) This is a completely ad hoc response. ... The only thing you provide is a biblical quote which is poetic not literal and called into question by the very nature of this debate (i.e. we're trying to decide if God exists and if he doesn't then the Bible is called into question). First, your definition of God as "omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect" came from somewhere. Odin, Zues and a schlew of other gods were NEVER defined by terms which are anything like these. The only conclusion which can be inferred from your opening argument, from your reference to "Hell" and from the definition of God which you've provided, is that you're referring to the Christian God, which is defined through the Bible. Therefore, the Bible becomes a relevant source in the definition of love. If this is wrong, and it is some other God we're discussing, please correct me. Secondly, we are not "trying to decide if God exists," but specifically, whether there is a contradiction between God and Hell which proves that one or the other does not exist. This is a -technical- question which hinges upon every relevant definition, including "God," "morally perfect," and "Hell." Fine distinctions in the way these are understood matter significantly. But moving on, you assert.... >1b) That being said, it seems very likely to me that God's love does not work the way you describe. God's most common moniker is "God the father", indicating parental and not romantic love. In parental love, the love does not need to be requited; instead the parental figure often does things for the child against the child's will because it is in the best interest of the child. ... If God has paternal love, then your theodicy fails we are again faced with the paradox I have presented. This is easily the strongest part of your argument. A parental understanding of love is an equally valid Biblical perspective, and it is absolutely correct that parents attempt to intercede on their children's parts. But Parental Love and Romantic Love are really very similar on this abstract level. An unrequitted lover still offers kindness to the woman who rejects him, just like a father intercedes in the life of his son. The problem is that ultimately, as we understand both forms of love, love is naturally meant to be recipricated. And when it's not, there reaches a point where each intervention leads to antagonism and bitterness from the child or lover who must constantly refuse them. So that there is a point when offering someone more of yourself only leads that person to hate you further, and where ultimately, the Father and the Lover must simply pull back and leave the other person to decide for themselves. If "morally perfect" is in fact defined in this manner of love, as a Christian / Catholic understanding of Him is, then you do not have a contradiction. For Eternal Life is specifically, Biblically defined as "Knowledge of God" (John 17:3), meaning that Hell becomes an amplified form of the bitterness which comes from rejecting a lover. But according to you: >2) This argument is a false dichotomy. You are arguing that if God does not force us to love him, then people will go to Hell. I do not see why this must be so. Why can't God create a world in which everyone is free, yet everyone freely accepts God? ... So unless you can demonstrate that freedom and complete acceptance of God are, by necessity, in contradiction, the response cannot fly. "Freedom to accept" is not a freedom unless you also have the "freedom to reject." Otherwise it would mean you were programmed to accept. And to argue in favor of a world where only those who would choose to accept may exist is to argue for the pre-emptive annhilation of those who would choose otherwise. Whatever we may casually wish, it is presumably better to exist, even in Hell, than to not exist at all, but the latter cannot be tested. >3) Your argument assumes that God forcing someone to love him would be worse than Hell. This just seems false. In most definitions Hell is the worst possible state one can be in. A forced love cannot, by definition, be worse than this. I did not argue that forced love would be worse then Hell, but rather, that forced love is not love. In Christianity, God is defined by love in ways similar to what we understand on Earth, and to argue that God should force others to love Him is not arguing for a God who is defined by love. Consequently, you are calling for an oxy-moron. You are also calling for a violation of "morally perfect" as you understand it, for morality stands firmly against coercion. But finally... >4) This answer begs the further question of why God would create a world like this? God knew when he promised to himself not to force people to love him that it meant people would go to Hell. So, are still faced with the same question. But you are forgetting my first and original assertion. God is omnipotent, and may do whatever He wants, but sequentially chose to bind Himself to a definition of Love. Arguing that God was in any way obligated before making such a promise is a violation of your own definition of God as omnipotent. Without this promise, where there is no "intercessor" between God and Man, you have the God of Job, where He may torture you for whatever whim he fancies. Hence, in creating a promise which creates things the way they are, there is no "morally perfect" obligation on His part to avoid a reality which sends people to Hell. Such that... I formulize the argument in this manner: 1) God is omnipotent and omniscient. 2) In His omnipotence, He freely chose to bind Himself to omnibenevolence. 3) Omnibenevolence requires a fully-distinct entity to love: Mankind. 4) To be fully-distinct, Individuals must be given the choice to reject God. 5) That rejection of God is defined as Hell and experienced as an infinite magnification of the bitterness associated with the act of rejecting another. 6) We know this because it is foreshadowed in our own experiences with love. Hence, "morally perfect" and "Hell" are not contradictory. If you want to challenge me again, what about making it a five rounder?