God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (redo)

If you don't mind, I'll just jump right in. 1) Ok, so the main argument from you is that "I assert that love is meant to be reciprocated" and I feel as if your whole argument, indeed your whole theodicy hinges on this single claim. I challenge this claim by mentioning that love without expectations seems purer than love that expects something in return. A famous bible verse echoes this idea that love has no expectations: "Love is patient; love is kind and envies no one. Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; never selfish, not quick to take offense. There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope, and endurance. In a word, there are three things that last forever: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of them all is love. (1 Corinthians 13:4)" What I see as responses to this challenge from you are a few quotes: "love is by design, by the Designer, intended to be reciprocated." And: "Love is…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." In both cases, I see very little in the way of external evidence supporting the claim that love is meant to be reciprocated. You have merely fiated that God intends love to be reciprocated and then described a vision of love that is consistent with you love-as-reciprocation view. So as I see it, your argument boils down to love is meant to be reciprocated because God created it that way. Now, we clearly have no way to know how God intended love to work unless he tells us (he is noticeably silent on many issues), but we can look at the evidence and see that many terrific forms of love are often not reciprocated or are imperfectly reciprocated (such as the plethora of forms I mention) and conclude that maybe God did not create love to be reciprocated. So, without adequate support for your love-as-reciprocation view, I do not see any reason to agree with it. 2) You claim: "There is no causation between religion/atheism and intelligence." Now, it is of course, technically true that we do not have data suggesting causation between these variables (because we can't manipulate intelligence) but we have some correlation data suggesting a connection: "In 1975, Norman Poythress studied a sample of 234 US college undergraduates, grouping them into relatively homogeneous religious types based on the similarity of their religious beliefs, and compared their personality characteristics. He found that "Literally-oriented religious Believers did not differ significantly from Mythologically-oriented Believers on measures of intelligence, authoritarianism, or racial prejudice. Religious Believers as a group were found to be significantly less intelligent and more authoritarian than religious Skeptics." He used SAT's as a measure of intelligence for this study." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) "Sociologist Zena Blau of the University of Houston recently conducted a study of more than a thousand children in Chicago. [...] In 1981 Blau reported that IQs were lowest among children whose mothers have overly strict religious beliefs. Children whose mothers were from a non-denominational or non-religious background had the highest average IQs - 110 for whites, 109 for blacks. Children whose mothers belonged to "fundamentalist" religious groups tended to have IQs that were 7 to 10 points lower. According to Blau, these religion-IQ differences hold even when you take into account the mother's social class, current occupational status, and education." (Understanding Human Behavior" by James V. McConnel, p555-6) So, there is an inverse connection between religious belief and intelligence and it does not seem to me to be caused by entertainment. To my mind, we as a society are becoming smarter and thus less religious. But there's no way to know for sure. This seems to refute the whole point of your response on this point. 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. CONCLUSION: I do not have any external evidence validating my opponents claim on point 1 that "love is meant to be reciprocated" despite the fact that I repeatedly provide examples of love that does not necessarily involve reciprocation. On point 2 I assert that my opponent's theodicy and no one going to Hell are not logically contradictory so an all-powerful, morally perfect deity should create such a world. I do not see any reason to doubt this claim coming from my opponent.