God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (redo)

I'm going to do something a little unusually here. I'm going to admit when we are not likely to settle an argument or when an argument is not likely to go anywhere. Hopefully this will lean out the debate and make it more streamlined. But, before I get to the point by point, I would like to admit that this is one of the better responses to this problem of Hell that I've heard. Naturally, I don't think it solves it and I still think the problem of Hell is a huge one, but it's interesting to know that decent responses exist. 1a) I'm just going to drop this argument. I use it mostly as an old standby against the free will defense to the traditional problem of evil and I find it persuasive in that context. Here, it's not as useful. Additionally, even if I'm right, I'm not sure that this gets me anywhere. So, I'm going to move on. 1b) I think we're both on the same page here in thinking that this is my most powerful and intuitive argument. Your response seems to hinge on two claims: "The problem is that ultimately, as we understand both forms of love, love is naturally meant to be recipricated." "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." First, I want to disagree with the claim that "love is naturally meant to be reciprocated". At first this argument glance seems intuitive. Usually when you love someone in any form, you do expect that they will love you back. However, this seems more like a weakness of humanity than a universal definition of love. It seems to me that the purest form of love is the love that expects nothing in return. The person who gives or provides aid out of compassion for another and a real desire to improve their well-being with no desire to receive anything in return seems to be on the whole "more perfect" than the person who expects that love is reciprocated. The real problem is semantics "love" could mean romantic love, friendship, grandmotherly or ‘wise love', ‘loving-kindness'/ compassionate love or any number of other forms. In some of those forms of love, reciprocation is important (romantic in particular), in others it is not necessary. Since we have no reason to think that God has only romantic love instead of other (and more perfect) forms of love, we have no reason to think that love requires reciprocation. So, I hope to have demonstrated that a true form of love does not need to be reciprocated. The second part of your defense is that at a certain point, intervention leads to bitterness and antagonism. I don't see how this actually interacts with the parent analogy. In parenthood, sometimes the parent must do things that lead to the child becoming bitter and antagonistic, but they do it if it is in the child's best interest. Sure, at some point parents must stop intervening and allow children to handle things for themselves, but this is really due to a fault of the parents. If the parent could always be there and always make the best possible decision for the child, then there would be no need to let them do things on their own. God can, theoretically, do exactly this. So, God should just force us to have knowledge of him because it is in our best interest. Or, if you don't like that proposal, he should perpetually reincarnate us until we finally gain knowledge of him on our own. 2) I completely agree that "Freedom to accept" is not a freedom unless you also have the "freedom to reject." But, "freedom to reject" does not imply that rejection must actually take place. If I give you a choice between getting a million dollars and one dollar as a gift from me, I can predict that every sane person will pick the million dollars -- It's just a better choice This fact does not imply that they did not have the freedom to choose the one dollar gift, it just implies that it was obvious to everyone that a million dollars was a lot better. I am suggesting that it is not logically contradictory that everyone could have "freedom to reject" but no one would choose it. God could just make the attractiveness of choosing him even better than the distinction between the million dollars and one dollar. 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. Also, I need to take you to task with the claim that non-existence is worse than Hell. First, I don't think we want to say that anyone, God or man, has an obligation to non-existent beings. If we did, then you and I are committing ‘non-existent person murder' by typing out these arguments instead of either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant ourselves. Also, it seems to me that life could very easily be negative. If life is constant suffering, then you would be better off having not existed. 3) Your response is to claim that since God is defined by love and since forced love is not love, then God is not obligated to force people to love him. What occurs to me here is that this argument is going to hinge on the conclusion of the argument from 1b (we can just call it 1 now if you want). If God's love is a form other than romantic love then forced love is love and God should force us to love him. So, there's not point in debating this point further until we settle the 1b argument. 4) Ok, so it seems to me that your argument is that God is only fundamentally omnipotent and omniscient, but that he chose to bind himself to a definition of love and that this definition creates a world in which some people do go to Hell. Since God promised this to himself when he was amoral, it could not be an immoral promise. While I understand this response, once you start to think about it, it quickly becomes very confusing. I'm not entirely sure that God does exist temporally in the way you describe and I'm not sure that God was not morally perfect/ defined by love from the beginning, but, I really doubt that this can go anywhere other than senseless bickering over definitions of God. So, I'll drop it for now. CONCLUSION: in the interest of sticking to relevant debate topics and in sympathy to our dear readers, I have attempted to sideline argument 1a, 3 and 4 for various reasons and focus primarily on arguments 1b and 2. Thus, my position is essentially that even if God is defined by love, it is likely to be parental love which would allow God to intercede if we reject him because it would be in our best interest. Alternatively, I disagree with the implicit assumption in premise 4 of his formalization that "To be fully-distinct, Individuals must be given the choice to reject God." By saying that it is possible that God could create people with the possibility to reject God who rarely or never do it. This could be done by creating people who are rational and making it obvious that God is the most rational choice. Well, that's what I've got for now. I look forward to a response. Also, if any readers have feedback on my arguments please feel free to tell me!