On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

Ouch...the old "well...I can't defend my point...but, but...your Bible isn't true...so there!"

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the only one allowed to use that ploy. Isn't 'revealed theology' just a restatement of 'I can't defend my point, but the Bible is true...so there!'?

What invariably happens with atheists when they tackle a Christian doctrine they think is an easy target is they stumble on the criticism because, well, they don't know what they are talking about. When they find the doctrine is not only coherent, but is internally consistent with the rest of the Christian doctrines, they revert to a version of what you did. That's okay though, because it is the universal signal to Christians that they won the point. 

I'll let you in on a secret: there is not an objection to a Biblical doctrine you can think of that has not been answered for centuries (if not longer) . 

---

Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.

Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?

The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.

This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.

Regarding your last sentence, why do you need to assign 'greater than' to combinations? Why not stick just with 'greater than' in individual attributes? Nearly all of God's attributes have no conflict with each other so the rare instance where there is a conflict where it is not possible to have a greatest X *and* a greatest Y then it is resolved on a case by case basis. Again, we don't even need to know how it get's resolved--only that it must be resolved. As RR said, you need examples to rescue your objection--because it seems to everyone that you have just misapplied math again.

And why *must* it be resolved? it is perfectly consistent that there is no resolution and therefore there is no God. So you cannot make this argument as a proof of the existence of God.

IF there seems to be a conflict between two attributes being maximally great, then by logic (which is very elusive in this conversation) it is impossible that both are maximally great in the same person. I'll remind you the topic is God being the greatest possible being--SO then one or both of those attributes are incorrectly conceived because they are not possible. In case you missed it, the key is whether something is actually possible. SO, your "it is perfectly consistent that there is no resolution" is some sort of lame attempt at skipping the reasoning and jumping to your desired conclusion. 

Who said *anything* about a proof for God? I have been explaining doctrine. 

I can assure you the math isn't being misapplied. It just doesn't lead to the conclusion you want.

The fact that you think it applies at all is utterly confounding.