God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (redo)

I have enjoyed this debate quite a bit as well. But we're down to the final round. I've presented my position in full in round 4, for readers who are interested in cutting to the chase, and I will simply take these closing remarks to address Kvaughan's last points. He begins by returning to an original argument from Round 2. >"My argument is that you have simply invented a definition for love which happens to work very well with your theodicy. >"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." But I have, you simply haven't interacted with them. I argued, Intended Reciprocity: "We know this from the massive disparity in the consequences of love which is returned and love which is not." Romantic Love: "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." As for Christian evidence, in the very first round, I prevented an extended quote from Hoseah in the form of wedding vows. The rest of Hoseah, incidentally, is a tirade of God against Israel for being an unfaithful lover. And yet, you ignore this in favor of a "Fatherly Love" position. But assuming that Fatherly Love is as distinct from Spousal love as you imply, yours is the ad hoc position, not mine. You are trying to argue, without evidence, that this is the single type of love out of many which Christianity relates to Omnibenevolence and to Eternal Life. But I have presented evidence in the very first Round that Omnibenevolence, Eternal Life and Hell are defined not by the Fatherly love, but by an intimate love. I demonstrated, "This is eternal life, that THEY MAY KNOW YOU, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3) And the word "know" here is a double entendre, often used to express sex. Consequently, the Fatherly love of God is not relevant to the discussion of Hell, as the love in question is an intimate love meant to be reciprocated. It therefore means that God would not force Himself onto the other person. As for your evidence, >"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…." Total Fallacy: I admitted a correlation, you didn't come close to proving causation. If you really wanted a proof of where intelligence leads, find a study which compares the IQs of people converting to Catholicism from Atheism, and from Atheism to Catholicism. As someone who is and knows many converts, the contrast is quite striking. And anyways, Church attendance now is about the same as it was in the Middle Ages. With only 12 percent of the world claiming to be atheist, I'm not sure that's any higher than anywhere else in time. Finally, you pull four supposed arguments from each sequential round to supposedly show how God could create a world where people could have freedom to reject, without actually rejecting. But all of your quotes essentially say the same thing, and don't actually make an argument, let alone interacts with the reasoning I've already provided. In your own summary: >"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." Yes, you have so stated. Four times no less. But all of the human faculties are created by God, and if there is any such faculty which motivates our choice irrefutably, then God has made our choice for us. I made this clear in Round 2: "Otherwise it would mean you were programmed to accept." Only one's personal choice is relevant. If for any reason every person would not reject God, then there is no free will. Freedom to Accept must come with Freedom to Reject, and it is not freedom but slavery or coercion if God is forcibly motivating that choice for you. Moreover, in Round 3, I also went back to the definition of love and the need for Love to be done without expectation, saying that: "Doing so would create the expectation that everything which exists will love you in return, so that love would become obligation and not love." And you seem to concur, saying in Round 4: >"I challenge this claim by mentioning that love without expectations seems purer than love that expects something in return." CONCLUSION: I have consistently, sufficiently, addressed Kvaughan's arguments. God vowed Himself to Omnibenevolence, meaning that through self-sacrifice, He revealed Himself to us, creating the Hope of a Loving Intimacy meant to be returned.