On Hell and Forgiveness

[Angrboda]

It's not an epistemological problem, Steve, as was already pointed out to you in that thread.  As well as the problem that this results in your God's values being arbitrary and thus not an example of moral perfection in an independent thread.  Regardless, we're back to God is good because you say so.  And I'm the most beautiful woman in the world because I say so.  Big deal.  You can assert shit without reason.  So can anybody.  For the claim that God is morally perfect to have any value, it would have to be coherent.  It isn't, so you're just muttering incomprehensible gibberish and hoping that nobody notices.

The Christian God is defined as the greatest possible being (scripture-informed Perfecting Being Theology). If you cobble together some lesser characteristics and say "your God could be this way", you are redefining the word. For this conversation and every one after, I do not grant the redefining of the term 'God'. There is nothing incoherent about the standard definition. You can easily glean attributes of God from the Bible and then systematize them into a doctrine using philosophy/logic. The concept has been discussed since Augustine. 

It doesn't help that the Christian God has been defined as the greatest possible being if greatness itself has no objective basis. That is not cobbling together lesser characteristics nor redefining the word. It's pointing out that the word has no objective meaning, and thus, from an objective standpoint, the concept is incoherent. I suspect you still fail to understand the actual problem. Your complaints here seem nothing more than throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. The fact that the concept has been discussed since Augustine is really not particularly relevant. Even Godel himself didn't seem to grasp the problem. Gleaning things from special revelation doesn't provide any more of an objective foundation, which is required if you are going to justify the conclusion from God's greatness. I suspect, too, that the bible also assumes an objective ordering of properties and so you would simply be trying to support one mistake with the same flawed argument. In the Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology, the question is briefly discussed, with no actual conclusions forthcoming. It is simply more or less assumed that objectively ordering properties might have some basis and then quickly moves on from there. There are problems with their discussion, but since that doesn't appear to be your issue, I'll deal with them if they are brought up.