If God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense, then universalism should be true.

Thanks to philochristos for his thoughtful round. I appreciate his fair summing up my arguments as well. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I take issue with a lot of it.I. The problem of arbitrariness1. We're not in a position to say why God didn't save one more person.I think this objection is mistaken. First, we are not talking about changing or adding to the total number of humans as we would be in the case of God creating 1 more person ex nihilo to be added to the "elect" class. We are talking about God electing E + 1 people from the set of humans that are in any particular possible world. So, the rhetorical questions to illustrate Con's point (I'll call it the stars + 1 objection) don't quite get off the ground.Second, I think given my sketched scenario reducing the amount of suffering is something an omnibenevolent God would do. Why? Because given my scenario he can already satisfy the actualization conditions for justice and wrath with a much less number of the reprobate (much less suffering) than he actually does. That God would opt for a situation wherein there is much more suffering on the reprobates part when he could have done much with less (without changing the magnitude of his glory) doesn't seem to me to be very benevolent - much less omnibenevolent!2. It pits God's goodness in saving people against his goodness in displaying his wrath.My arguments need not assume that good aspects of God's nature are being pitting against each other. I even think that wrath, properly understood, is a good thing (but I understand it in a rehabilitative sense, not retributive). But even on a retributivist understanding of wrath that is being seen as good the objection doesn't seem to hold weight. Given that the goodness of his wrath can still be displayed on demons/Satan while all human beings are elect (which shows his goodness in mercy and grace). If we accept the plausible assumption that omnibenevolence has to do with loving and wanting to maximize the welfare of loved ones (the elect) then God preferring that there are more people who don't have their welfare maximized when he could absolutely do with less suffering is just undermines the whole concept. If we accept God as the maximally perfect being it would seem that it's greater to love all humans with the same love rather than a select few.3. It ignores the fact that everybody who is damned deserves it, but nobody who is saved deserves it.My arguments need not assume this either. It could be the case that it a fact that all deserved to be damned and none deserve to be saved. Indeed, that is a common theme amongst all denominations of Christians. It is also common that God in his infinite love and grace decided to show mercy on humans and elect them. None of this scenario requires talk about moral obligations and such. It could simply be that God's nature is to love, be gracious, and merciful and it's not that some obligation requires him to save - it's that by his very nature he is motivated to do such a thing. And, given the most common and plausible understanding of love, graciousness, and mercy, and given that he could satisfy his need to actualize his justice and wrath with much less suffering of humans it would seem God would do so.II. Calvinistic Universalism1. It again neglects the fact that people are sinners who deserve damnation and nobody deserves salvation.I addressed Con's 1 earlier.2. It could be that God's wrath being poured out on the reprobate enhances our appreciation of Christ's sacrifice.I think this reply here overlooks several more plausible replies, that, unfortunately are not consonant with this line of reasoning.For one, I should think that given traditional Incarnational theology wherein in Christ is both 100 % divine and 100 % human God pouring out his wrath on Christ in the atonement should be more than sufficient enough to get humans to appreciate what they are being saved from apart from God's saving love. Indeed, if all humans were saved it would lead to more appreciation of God's amazing grace and love and wonderment at what we rightly deserved but did not receive.For two, it's unclear, again, why the reprobates would have to be human persons. Surely we could appreciate the demonstration of his wrath on non-human moral agents (such as demons) that are actually guilty of sin and God would still be able to get his point across. Heck, God could create a massive illusion where "virtual reality" reprobates are shown to the elect having Gods' wrath poured upon them. God would not have to tell the elect that this is a non-real scenario, the elect would have their appreciation of God's graciousness maximized, and actual moral agents capable of suffering would not be hurt.Sure the above are highly speculative, just as Cons replies are, but I think my speculations hold up better.III. The sovereignty of God in salvationI do agree with Con that the Bible is the word of God (although I am almost 100% certain we differ on what exactly that means and entails) but I would not quite agree with Con's analysis here. Even if it were to be shown that Calvinism (and by extension it's take on sovereignty) was unquestionably the best theology on offer of the Bible this problem would still remain. Because my line of argument here is essentially parasitic off of Calvinistic theology - it shows that following the line of reasoning with the theology one could consistently be a universalist. And then this would give rise the question of why God didn't actualize a world where universalism is true over one where it's not true. There appears to be no reason if my arguments are successful. Which would again count against the claim that God is all-good. If Calvinism truly has this sort of internal problem than it'd be best to remain agnostic on the relevant questions in any case.I actually don't agree with some aspects of Calvinism as I think there are good biblical reasons to be a universalist. [1]That's neither here nor there in this debate. I think a version of the problem of evil still remains embedded within Calvinistic theology.Sources[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...