On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

OK, let's have some fun.

Which is greater? 1 or 100? Does that mean that God cannot be one?

Which is greater? Working alone or working as a team? Does that mean that God cannot work alone?

Which is greater? humility or egotism? Does that mean God must be humble?

I'm sure there are many others.....

---

And might justice have such imperfections? How about goodness? maybe being infinite is a type of imperfection iin a different way.

Once again, you are assuming all the different types of 'greater' actually agree with each other. But they are on distinct scales, judged differently, and often are at odds with each other, at least potentially (goodness and justice? knowledge and goodness?). It is *precisely* this merging that is problematic. There are many ways to do such merging for partial orders and they give different answers depending on the specific merging technique used.

So, no, 'greater' isn't an objective thing: it strongly depends on the quantity being measured and how it is measure Even in the case of goodness, it is far from clear that the different *types* of goodness can be reconciled in a consistent manner.

So, yes, indeed, we very much *do* need to know what constitutes a perfection, or an imperfection. We most definitely *do* need to know how the merging of different types of greatness is to be done. And we still need to have an argument why there has to be a 'greatest' in *any* of those characteristics, let alone for *all* of them at the same time.

Basic logic shows the weakness of your claims. Even very simple questions about how to go about making your ordering have been avoided. Until that issue is dealt with, there really isn't anything to argue.

You continue to confusing ontology with epistemology. I *don't* have to be able to figure it out! I *don't* need to know the answers to all your questions. I *don't* need to know how to order them. It is not necessary to the concept. All that is necessary is that there is a greatest possible combination of all those characteristics.

Yes, it is very much necessary *for there to be a concept*. You avoid the central issue: why do you think there is a single concept that encompasses all the others? All you have given is vague claims about certain properties being greater than others. But that isn't enough to establish your conclusion.

The ontology is that there are partial orders without greatest elements.

The ontology is that there is no single way to merge partial orders in a consistent way.

The ontology is that you don't have a concept from which to work.

The epistemology is that you cannot know any of your claims are true.