On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

@Steve:

There's a Vikings football game tonight, and between that and other matters, I doubt I will get around to replying to your latest replies tonight.

In the absence of such, I'll simply make two quick notes.  First, my hypothetical about God appearing to the world was a straightforward POE argument, not simply "if I were God."  Any response to it then needs to be on those terms.  Second, you still do not seem to understand either that the question of there being an objective basis for greater than judgements is not an epistemological problem, as well as providing no objective basis for your belief that such things as what a conscious being would find preferable are not subjective criteria.  Where things become epistemological is that lacking an argument for an objective basis of any of these preferences, you could equally as effectively disprove my claim that there are no objective greater than relationships by providing one counter-example.  Then it does become an epistemological as well as a practical question.  As of yet, you haven't provided any that appear to withstand scrutiny.  You assert that certain things are greater than other things, but beyond the assertion, you haven't given any reason supporting your assertion.  Assertions by themselves are not sufficient.

Omnipotence IS objectively greater than limited power. Omniscience IS objectively greater than limited knowledge. Omnibenevolence IS objectively greater than selectively good. You have no reasons to deny this. Objective mean not based in personal feeling or opinion. It does not mean there is an external scale in which things can be dragged over and measured. The 'greater than' is contained within the concept of the property--especially since these properties have outcomes. I would agree that red is not greater than green. This is not that. 

As to the God that kills babies, both you and Neo seem to be misunderstanding my intent.  I'm not in any way suggesting that Yahweh kills babies for no reason.  In fact, just the opposite.  I am conceding that Yahweh does not do this, ex hypothesi.  The challenge is to provide an objective basis for saying that Yahweh is greater than a God that does.  In order to do that, you need to do (at least) two things.  First, show that it is objectively wrong to kill babies for no reason, and my god is therefore immoral, and second, that being moral is objectively greater than not being moral.  In the absence of either of those, you've failed to show that Yahweh is greater than the god who kills babies for no reason.  I haven't fully thought it through, but upon first glance, any attempt to argue that morality has an objective basis because God is objectively moral would seem to be circular and begging the question.  (I think, anyway.  If you disagree, then we can discuss it.)

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.