God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (redo)

It's actually a little odd and out of place to have to answer a call for providing evidence in this debate. The topic is whether a loving God and Hell are contradictory, but as these are Christian terms, then it is the Christian concept of Hell which is under discussion. Whether these are in sync with reality is another debate entirely, irrelivent to the question of their intrinsic compatibility, thereby making a need for such evidence a fallacy. Nonetheless, I will make every effort to comply, and even without an appeal to obscure, technical sources, which change the results from debate skills to research skills. First, however, I have been presenting a complex argument which needs to develop in layers, and so, even though Kvaughan hasn't quite addressed the fundamental arguments in the last round, before I respond directly, I will develop my argument here in round 4 so that I do not need to do present new material in the final round. 1) The Argument Reformalized God is Omnipotent. In His Omnipotence, God pledged Himself to Omnibenevolence, the "Word" through which "all things were made," as the sole and infinite action which perfects Him and brings His will into fulfillment. Omnibenevolence - Love - is the willing sacrifice of Oneself for another, which exposes Oneself's inner core as Love for the other person, done without expectancy because One is moved by the other. But exposing Oneself as being in Love with another unavoidably leaves One vulnerable to judgement - acceptance or rejection - which creates the Hope that One's love is returned. To return another's love is intimacy, to "know" the other person as only lovers can. To reject another's love damages oneself in the rejecting (more on this below). We know objectively and resolutely from these consequences of un-returned love that by design, by the Designer, "Love" - as a piece of creation - was meant to be reciprocated. In order to Love and sacrifice without expectation, One requires a separate, distinct person to Love, who has the Free Will to accept or to reject One's love. Therefore, God created each member of "Mankind" in His own image, endowing them with the Freedom to return His love or reject it. He revealed His inner core as Love for them through the sacrifice of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man. And He hopes that His love will be returned without expectancy. By definition, Eternal Life is to accept His intimacy, to "know" God and His sacrifice of Jesus Christ as only lovers can. Hell, then, is the damage one does to oneself through the act of rejecting the infinite Lover. Consequently, the "infinite Hell" is the unavoidable result of rejecting the "infinite Lover." 2) One Step Further - The Fall But Mankind is Fallen, so we don't always see it right away. Of the many consequences of this Fall, we neither Love in full or all at once. Consequently, we cannot reject in full or all at once. We live in miniature, here, what we will live in full in the world to come. We take things in baby steps, building and revealing our intentions with another person slowly and imperfectly through our actions. And the result is that we don't often experience the damage we do to ourselves in rejecting another. In the few cases where that rejection is meaningful, we as society are rather distracted by the heartbroken other person. Which leads me to... 3) The Call for Evidence You respond to the argument by saying... >"I challenge this claim by mentioning that love without expectations seems purer than love that expects something in return." This is what you said in the prior round as well, and I addressed it adequately. You are failing to distinguish between the intentions in loving and the intentions of creating love as something which can be done. I have conceded, and even emphasized, and even defined love by, the notion that it is done without expecting anything in return. But that expectation is on the part of one who is loving, as distinct from one who is creating the concept of love. We know that love, by design, is meant to be reciprocated. We know this from the massive disparity in the consequences of love which is returned and love which is not. One is immensely positive, and the other is downright damning. >"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." But in all your examples, of a father or a friend or a brother or a grandmother or just a neighbor, you ignore the consequences of love which is unreturned, especially of the consequences of the one who rejects the other. You haven't addressed my counter examples, of what happens to the son who is ashamed of the father who loves him, or the man constantly embarrassed by his best friend, or the little boy who throws his grandmother's treats into the trash. The love still exists, but the results aren't positive. One person is hurt, the other is damaged. One is heartbroken, the other must train himself to ignore the pain he's just inflicted. One person is in pain, the other must learn not to care. >"So, without adequate support for your love-as-reciprocation view, I do not see any reason to agree with it." But we only see these things through the Fall, in parts so easy to miss. We might agree, however, that if any of this were actually true, God would look for a way to show it to us through the Fall. He would want us to see, without possibility of denial, the damage such rejections do to oneself. It would behoove him, then, to create a type of Lover who defies what we can clearly see love is meant to be, a type of Lover we each are partially compelled to reject even without being prompted. A lover through even the fear of being the target of their affections compels most people to a reject them with unnatural and unwarranted vitriol, and highlight for us all to witness the damage that the experience of rejection does to a person. If God has created such a lover, and if we do in fact witness undeniably a horrible damage done to those who embrace the corresponding lover-phobia, then the Catholic view of Love holds consistent with creation. 4) The Possibility of a World Without Those who would Reject In round 2, you asserted: >"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." >"This could be done by creating people who are rational and making it obvious that God is the most rational choice." All of this suggests an appeal to intelligence and rationality. But now, you claim: >"Additionally, I wasn't even really trying to say that God could make us smarter to make us accept him more. Yes, you clearly were. A person is forever enslaved to his perceptions and intelligence, and if God created both Truth and Reason, then he has created the program which enslaves Mankind. This violates the concept of Free Will. The rest is of your reply is a red herring.