On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

Libertarian Free Will just means your choices are not causally determined by something outside yourself. Having a nature/characteristic that governs your actions/thoughts does not in any way impinge on free will. Every conceivable conscious being has such influences/limits.

Unless you object to the following definition, you’re wrong. From Wikipedia:

The action was not uncaused, because the agent caused it. But the agent's causing it was not determined by the agent's character, desires, or past, since that would just be event causation.

If god’s actions are determined by his fixed nature, then he is not a free agent.  Hell, even us lowly humans have the capacity to act against our natures.  We do it all the time, but god can’t do it at all? 

You didn't provide a link so I cannot see the context of your paste. It seems to me you are confusing the definition of free will with uncaused. Free will requires that the causes are not external. I have pasted this elsewhere:

Definition: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

In a nutshell, libertarian free will is choosing an action that is not causally determined by factors outside of one's mind. 

Human's ability to know what perfect justice is in no way affects, at all, that God would have perfect justice. The God we are talking about is conceived as the greatest possible being:the objective standard of things like Justice—

Wait, what?  I’m asking you for rational justification for the claim that god’s actions reflect perfect justice.  Your answer is, ‘god is perfectly just because he’s the greatest possible being, and a greatest possible being is by definition, perfectly just.’  That’s a circle, Steve. And so is, ‘God’s actions reflect perfect justice, as evidenced by his actions in the Bible.’ Pared down, this is simply a bare assertion.

That's not a circle. You have simple restated the exact same premise with the same exact meaning. If I say something is in the Bible and that's the basis for the doctrine, to claim that is an assertion is to not understand the word. 

God's rationale for his actions are founded in that concept (along with omniscience) and therefore cannot be judged by those that are no so equipped.

That’s not a rationale.  It’s an assertion for which, according to your implication, humans have no ability to understand or discern, so it’s meaningless.

You cannot use this type of argument--it does not work. If the doctrine comes from the Bible, then you cannot claim it is my assertion. You MUST grant the belief based on my underlying acceptance that the Bible is revealed theology. You may show that belief to be wrong, irrational, not internally consistent, or whatever but you can't call it 'my assertion'. 

If God exists, it is incoherent to say that God may or may not be just--because you cannot ground such a determination in anything objective.

You are putting the cart before the horse here. We must describe what something is first, before we can talk about it. You are proposing a thing called ‘objectively perfect justice’ exists, but you can’t even coherently define it.  And to say, ‘God has to be perfectly just, because he can’t not be,’ is nothing but a tautology.

If God does not exist, there is not such thing as objective justice. ONLY if God exists, can we have any grounding to call justice objective because part of the definition of God is that he be the paradigm of justice. We don't actually have to know what perfect justice is for this to work--in fact we can't know because our minds are limited.

You are talking about the concept of what should we expect God to be like or to do. To answer that, we can't start with, "well, if I were God, I would...". We have to infer our list from revealed information, the concept of God, and the natural world.

I get the impression you’re trying to paint my objection as some kind of emotional appeal, but it isn’t. it’s a logical one:

If it is true that god is a rational, intelligent mind who is bound by his nature, then it follows that god’s actions must be logically consistent with his expressed goals and desires. If god’s expressed goal is to save as many souls as possible, then any action (or inaction) that fails to secure the best possible outcome is logically inconsistent with that goal. 

2. Is it not the case that God is hidden from everyone. There are countless testimonies of people's experience of God. There are no defeaters for these billions of experiences so the claim really is: God is hidden from me when atheist demand or surmise that God would show himself if he were real.

Wait.  You’ve already conceded in this discussion that god is capable of showing himself with some next level revealatory power, or as you called it:

An advertisement in the sky—

But, that that action would: 

Seem to undercut that part of the process.

When I asked you for a reason to justify why it has to be a process, you deflected.  You asked me follow-ups unrelated to my point, and never answered my question. So again, if god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would show himself plainly, and indisputably to every single person, right now. 

3. God provided substantial evidence of himself in the person of Jesus and the events of the early first century. This is exactly what you seem to be asking for. God himself lived among us for 33 years and did many miraculous things culminating in the death and resurrection--with has huge existential meaning in both salvation and the possibility of a personal relationship through the Holy Spirit.

If god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would penetrate every slice of space-time that exists, and show himself plainly and indisputably with this ‘advertisement in the sky’ to every single person who ever lived, and ever will live; not leave it up to the stories of temporally existing human witnesses to convince every generation from that point in time forward.

4. God provides substantial evidence of himself in nature that is easily reflected on and has been for millennium. Why is there something rather than nothing?

If god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would penetrate every slice of space-time that exists, and show himself plainly, and indisputably with this ‘advertisement in the sky’ to every single person who ever lived and ever will live; not leave people to hopefully make correct inferences about nature and the origins of the universe.  Asking why is there something rather than nothing is logically incoherent, but that’s for another discussion.

5. God gives everyone a sense of himself.

See above.

6. Every bit of evidence suggests that God's purposes are personal in nature. God desires a personal relationship with each person--NOT recognition that he exists.

Belief is the rationally necessary pre-requisite, Steve.  Do reasonable people desire to have relationships with things they don’t believe are real? 

First, God could have multiple goals or multi-level goals. Second, part of God's knowledge is that of counterfactuals. He would know that if Person A was given sufficient evidence, they would freely choose to have a relationship with him (his goal). Alternatively, he would know that Person B would not. The solution is that God will provide the sufficient evidence (customized) for Person A.  This solution has the added benefit of working for all places and all generations. Do I know perfectly how this works? No. But it does serve to gut your conclusion that God would logically show himself if he existed.