On Hell and Forgiveness

[RoadRunner79]

It seems silly to me, to argue in one instance, that you don't know what is meant, and then in another instance, to say that it is incoherent.  If you don't understand it, then how can you assess it at all?  I don't expect you to do the work except for your own claims... it's just confusing that you are making claims, and subsequently claim you don't know what you are talking about.

There is some disagreement on what is a great making quality or virtue.  This disagreement however is objective, and not just making statements concerning ones self.   Plantinga describes a maximally great being, or a maximally excellent being in the ontological argument.  I think that the following definition of greatness seems to fit "denoting the element of something that is the most important or the most worthy of consideration"  I am (just now) thinking, that perhaps it is the phrasing "greater" that is tripping you up.  That these "great" make properties can be maximized, as in not lacking in this attribute, or posessing the quality which is contrary in nature.  

As to the claim that some of these are mutually exclusive, that's your claim, and I'm guessing that you are not insinuating that I do your work for you.

Since to be incoherent *means* that no sense can be made of it, I fail to see your problem reconciling not understanding something that is incoherent.

As for consistency of the different virtues, that *is* your job to show they are consistent. I already gave some that seem to be interconnected in ways that preclude maximizing more than one. They don't have to be mutually exclusive to destroy your position. They only need to not allow mutual maxima.

Yes, I have read Platinga. His version of the ontological argument is just as much nonsense as all the previous ones. Possible worlds don't help. When talking about 'most' or 'greatest' or anything along that line, you have to show such actually exists given your way or odering least to most, or lesser to greater. Not all ways of ordering allow single maxima, or even any maximum at all.

Still seems like you are using incoherent in two different ways, or at least making two arguments which do not work together.