On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

1. Love is a clear example of a moral virtue (if not the clearest). 
2. Killing babies for no reason constitutes a lack of love and therefore a lack of moral virtue.
3. Yahweh is considered all-loving and therefore defined as having the greatest possible moral virtue at all times.
4. Positive outcomes (harmony, structure, creation, trust, relationships) are better the Negative Outcomes (chaos, destruction, distrust, isolation) for conscious creatures
5. Greater moral virtue is better than lesser moral virtue because it regulates other attributes for more positive/less negative outcomes. 
6. More positive outcomes is better than more negative outcomes.
7. Therefore Yahweh is greater than a god that kills babies.

Just another quick reply, as I may not respond again tonight.

First, #1 is an example of begging the question.  You're essentially assuming what you set out to prove, that killing babies is immoral, you're simply introducing an element of indirection.  Whether you claim that baby killing violates a moral standard or that baby killing violates some other moral standard, you are claiming that a moral standard exists without showing it.  (Craig makes the same basic mistake in his argument pro God based on the existence of objective morals.  Given your fondness for Craig, perhaps you're following his example too well.)

Second, #4 is also begging the question, as whether any properties have valence at all is at issue.  You're simply assuming that certain outcomes are "positive" and certain outcomes are "negative" (in an objective sense).  That's not something you can simply assume, it's something you need to prove.

This is the primary failure of all your arguments on the matter so far, they are nothing more than assertions that certain things are positive or great making or whatever, and then providing a laundry list of the things you think qualify as such.  Your assertions prove nothing other than, perhaps the poverty of your thinking on this topic.  You need more than an assertion that something is objectively positive or great (very similar terms, btw), you need reasons why they are positive or great, and so far the only reason you've given is that a consciousness would find them so, and that doesn't take them out of the realm of the subjective; it actually undermines your argument.  For the sake of clarity, I don't need to show that something is, in a phrase, "mere preference" to show that it is subjective.  Just that it depends upon mental constructs or operations, as the question is not whether greatest is a preference as opposed to some other mental feature, but whether it is an arbitrary standard dependent upon the biases resulting from the development of mind, and not existing independent of any such biases.  So far, nothing you've argued has been anything more than ipse dixit.  In order for your belief that there is a greatest possible being to be rational, you need reasons for why certain things are or are not great that are not subjective, and not just assertions that they are.  I'm sure that you can assert and provide me with laundry lists all day.  That doesn't mean jack squat.  You need more than that.

If you ever manage to provide that, then we can discuss the difficulties that Poly has introduced.  Until you do, I'm not going to waste words on the matter.  And I will remind you that you are making a positive case here.  Your original argument was using the existence of God as the greatest possible being to justify his morality.  If you can't justify his greatest possible being, that argument falls apart.  So provide me with something more than a mere restatement of your beliefs in the form of bare assertions and laundry lists, please!

All Steve does is assert things