On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

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) .

Well, given that we have learned a few things in the last few centuries, you might want to revisit those conclusions.

For example, we know that there does not *have* to be a 'greatest' in every system. We know that distinct systems may not have a mutual 'greatest'.

---

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.

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.

So the doctrine is that there is a single version of 'greater' that applies to all virtues? How about bravery vs compassion? How about honesty vs respect?

Besides, the whole debate boils down to the existence of your fairy tale deity. In the absence of such a creature, the rest of this goes out the window.

And, again, the problem isn't the impossibility of maximal versions of each virtue (that is a separate issue). The question is the consistency between different virtues. The virtues may be possible, and even a greatest for each individual virtue, without having a single entity be maximal for *all* virtues.

And how do you know there isn't more than one 'maximum'? Again, such are quite possible and even reasonable. But you make no mention to dispense with that possibility.

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.

Well, the point is that you make claims about the existence of a consistent ordering that are very hard to actually make work. You *claim* they are independent (or can be resolved on a case by case basis), but give no reason to think that.

The math shows that the argument form is invalid. Either you have to show why the mathematical analogy doesn't apply or you have to admit your argument is nonsense.