Why does god choose negative reinforcement as part of his strategy - because he lacks control, or because he is cruel by nature? With proper deduction there are only two reasons why negative reinforcement is used, 1- the issuer lacks control, 2- the issuer is cruel. To answer this, first I must prove that god uses negative reinforcement. Hell, if your version of Christianity happens to believe in it, is a good example of negative reinforcement. Hell is not a facility to rehabilitate, enlighten, or correct but a platform to punish various sinners for eternity. Let us examine the definition of negative reinforcement.
Noun: negative reinforcement
1. A reinforcing stimulus whose removal serves to decrease the likelihood of the response that produced it
Example: A child wants to play in the street. A parent puts restrictions on such actions as the parent understands the danger, and the child does not. If the parent had the option to enlighten the child (as opposed to punishing), they would certainly choose to do so. However, the parent does not possess such powers, as where god does.
God's options are not limited, suggesting he chooses them out of desire. If god truly wanted to protect us, certainly he would enlighten us as opposed to simply punishing us, which has no productive or positive results. One could reasonably conclude that the only purpose of hell or punishment is a consequence to persuade, or ultimately, negative reinforcement.
Possible Christian retort:
-"God is love, not cruel." God restricts knowledge and cripples understanding purposely, thus creating the variable for struggle, pain, and punishment. Would a father with a family keep his front door open all night (maybe with a sign posted that reads "Strangers: rob me and rape my daughters") increasing the variable of negativity, and exposing his family to danger? Sure, if he was cruel or insane. So, why would our heavenly father increase the variable of negativity, exposing his earthly family of humans to danger? Not out of love.
-"Negative reinforcement isn't bad or exclusive to 1) limitation or 2) cruelty." Wrong. 1) A parent lacks the ability to enlighten a child to certain logic, but children understand negative feelings - hence often respond to negative reinforcement. In this case, the issuer lacks control. 2) However, if the parent had the power to enlighten the child and chose not to, the parent must resort to exerting negative reinforcement - or more simply put, negativity. Since making the child understand would result in safety, and negative reinforcement may result in safety (or danger), the positive result is compromised and variable for negativity become present. In this case, the issuer is cruel.
-"Hell was created for Satan and his demons." Regardless of who hell was created for, it does not negate the policy of humans receiving it.
-"You and the entire christianburner.com staff are going to hell." Where is hell located? I cannot seem to find it on my map - perhaps I need a map of fantasyland.
-"Hell is received by choices of free will." If a robber points a gun at me and gives me a choice to comply or suffer accordingly, he is using negative reinforcement - and ultimately has given me options. By such logic, the robber is using free will. If you disagree, then you agree that god does not issue free will - god gives us a choice to comply or suffer accordingly, and if you do not like either option it becomes a matter of which suffering is lesser, much like the options a rapist would give. If you disagree, then you believe that if a woman is in the process of being raped, refuses, and is beaten and stabbed - she was stabbed by choice. Rapist: "My way or the die way." Robber: "My way or the die way." Yahweh: "My way or the die way."