God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (redo)

Let me begin by saying that I have no sympathy for the reader, and I only use debate.org as a means to flush out my own rational arguments. Consequently, I hope you don't mind if I begin by clarifying something from your comments on argument 4. Then I will go on to address your arguments specifically. ~~~ My breakup of omnipotent and omnibenevolent is done as a way of explaining the otherwise very confusing position. The Bible has wording that explains this position better than I can. "In the beginning was the Word (active tense), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The "Word" of course is the promise, Jesus Christ, and "All things came into being through Him" (John 1:1-3). "Omnibenevolence" is therefore the sole and infinite action of "Omnipotence," which would otherwise be amoral, and the Catholic Church has long held that one's actions perfect a person. ~~~ 1) Romantic Love vs. Parental Love Let me begin by saying the distinction is a false dichotomy. As you point out: >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. While I don't think the Bible mentions "grandmotherly" love, all of these are applicable to God, run parallel with each other, and are given to us as a "type" to understand how we are to experience God. I only pointed to Romantic love as a clearer point of reference for the aspects of love I wanted to highlight. As to those aspects... #) The Reciprocity of Love I assert that love is meant to be reciprocated. >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 problem hinges upon the word "meant," which refers not to the person loving, or even to the person being loved. Rather, love is by design, by the Designer, intended to be reciprocated. Love is a purposeful sacrifice of oneself for another person, in a way which openly exposes oneself to the other person, done because one is moved by the other person's inherent truth and goodness and beauty, but the exposing of oneself sequentially creates the Hope of being loved in return. Consequently, the intention by the Creator is that love is INTENDED to be returned, but cannot by the lover be EXPECTED to be returned. Hence, the other person must have the ability to reject the lover, and naturally experience the full actualization of doing so. This returns us to my opening remarks. A person cannot be separated from their actions. Ones actions reveal oneself to another. Giving flowers perfects the intention of giving, in the sense that the intention reaches fulfillment in the action. But a person is most defined by that which they love. So actions which reveal another person as the source of one's love consequently leave one exposed, resulting in the Hope that the love will be returned. Therefore, God bound Himself to Love, creating individuals whom He fully loves, revealing Himself through creation and the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, without the expectation of being Loved in return, but fully with the Hope that we will. This was the infinite action of Omnipotence. &) The Consequences of Rejecting a Lover It should be noted that the consequences of rejecting an Earthly lover are an aside to the discussion. I return to the definitions, that Eternal Life is "Knowledge of God." To this I qualify, not rational Knowledge, but Knowledge gained through intimacy - reciprocated love. Hell, then, is by definition a rejection of intimacy with God. Earthly Lovers are an aside to whether Hell is contradictory with Omnibenevolance. However, it is still the evidence. So I assert that rejecting a lover has a negative impact on one's very personhood, and that individuals may reject any form of lover with finality. >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. Again, you're looking at things from the perspective of the lover, and not of the loved one. Imagine being loved by someone you're ashamed of... a father who loves you but hates everything you love in turn... a would-be partner who disgusts you... a friend who embaresses you... Rejecting any of these people damages you as a person, and it is an unkindness to continue putting them into the position of enacting that rejection. There is no proof of it but to experience it. ~~~ 2) "Freedom to Accept" and "Freedom to Reject" I assert that "Freedom to Accept" is not really a freedom unless one has the "Freedom to Reject." To this you agree, but add: >But, "freedom to reject" does not imply that rejection must actually take place. >This could be done by creating people who are rational and making it obvious that God is the most rational choice. >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. But in this argument you are only adding another layer of fluff before reaching the same conclusion. If God created man, then He also created man's faculty of "Reason." You are arguing that a person should be bound by his rationality, and therefore bound to the God that created his rationality. Worthy of note is that this is consistent with reality. There is no causation between religion/atheism and intelligence. Rather, what we are experiencing today is better expressed in this way: Intelligence => Education Education => Wealth Wealth => Entertainment Entertainment => A Distraction from Religious Depth This is a consequence of our cultural circumstances. It is entertainment which distracts us from religion because it appeals to the same human faculties as religion, an appreciation of something which is created. But this distraction needn't be understood as resulting in Hell, but only as preventing an individual's personal religious growth. Hence, there is no connection between an acceptance of God and intelligence, as there shouldn't be, because God cannot make us choose Him just by making us smarter. As to your remarks on non-existance: >Also, I need to take you to task with the claim that non-existence is worse than Hell. Then I will go back to the question of whether God can simply use omniscience to tell what a person will choose, and then only create people who will choose a certain way. Doing so would create the expectation that everything which exists will love you in return, so that love would become obligation and not love. ~~~ Formalized: 1) God is omnipotent. 2) God bound Himself to Love. 3) Love is sacrifice and self-exposure, without any expectations, which creates the Hope of being loved in return. 4) Mankind was created with the Freedom to reject God. 5) A person who for any reason cannot reject God would only create expectation, violating the principle of Love. 6) The act of rejecting a lover damages a person. 7) The act of rejecting the infinite lover is defined as Hell and experienced as the infinite rejection, the infinite damage to ones personhood. 8) We know this from our Earthly experience as lovers. Hence: An Omnibenevolent God and Hell are not contradictory.