On Hell and Forgiveness

[Angrboda]

Second, the claim is that the theist cannot prove that their god is greater than the baby killing god, not that I can prove that the baby killing god is greater.  (Rereading your second point, I'm not sure I understand how being great at something that it is not great to be great at would make the baby killing god greater than the supposed omni-greatest god Yahweh.  I guess I don't understand your point.)

Why isn't babykilling a metric that can be assessed to see which god is better at it?  A neutral objectivist would tell you that it is, even if it's not a metric we subjectively value.  

Some bad people are better at being bad than others, and most bad people are better at doing bad shit than good people.

There's something in what you say, perhaps in the general case. However, in the specific case, if being greatest at being something for which being great at is actually great (such as being moral) is not possible for the being that is great at baby killing, it would seem to be impossible to be greater than the non-baby killing god (ignoring the very real issues which Polymath raises about resolving multiple criteria). Thus while that doesn't prove that Yahweh is the greatest god, it does prove that the baby killing god isn't. (But again, Poly's objections screw everything up. Regardless of what Steve may think, an abstract problem involving multiple criteria does not become irrelevant or a category error simply because the problem is illustrated using mathematical relationships. The objections relate to ordering properties generally, not simply as they relate to numbers, and greatness is an ordering property which necessarily depends upon multiple criteria. So, no, Steve is simply incorrect in claiming that Poly is guilty of a category error.)