The Argument from Nonbelief

[Chany]

I am looking for good counterarguments for the argument of nonbelief (or the problem of divine hiddenness). It’s about the only argument that seems reasonable against the existence of the theistic God.

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).

Premise 1 is a given for any mainstream Christian, so cannot be challenged reasonably. 4 is a deduction and 5 is a conclusion, so neither can be challenged because the argument is logically sound. That leaves us with 2 and 3 to challenge.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[MKJ]

I am looking for good counterarguments for the argument of nonbelief (or the problem of divine hiddenness). It’s about the only argument that seems reasonable against the existence of the theistic God.

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).

Premise 1 is a given for any mainstream Christian, so cannot be challenged reasonably. 4 is a deduction and 5 is a conclusion, so neither can be challenged because the argument is logically sound. That leaves us with 2 and 3 to challenge.

I am fuzzy on why we have to accept premise 1. Nor am I sure why if it were so, there could not be reasonable non-belief. Neither of those things seems obvious to me.

 

[Genersis]

1 doesn't need to be true really. But I think you are right in saying most Christians believe such.
2 and 3 are too assumptive for my liking.
It assumes that a god is all powerful, or at least powerful enough for it's perfect love to perfectly manifest.

It also assumes reasonable non-belief exists.
I have at least met a couple of theists who believe all non-believers are in denial of some kind.
I guess it would be pretty hard to prove things either way, and reasonable non-belief is the more realistic position to assume true, but it is not impossible(though is very improbable).

But if we assume such things, I also never really understood why a perfectly loving and omnipotent god would sometimes allow things to reasonably appear otherwise.



I'm probably missing the entire point of this thread, but I hope my post was at least interesting.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I'd agree with the previous posters that I'm not sure 1. is set in stone. God, as revealed through the Bible, has done some pretty unloving things, at least as far as we humans understand love, such as ordering the murder of infants. It could be that we have a clouded definition of love, or that love is just a human approximation for what God is.

The problems I have with 2 are that, if we accept that God is perfectly loving, there are two reasons for people to still not believe...one is that for some reason God has chosen not to reveal himself to people in any meaningful way, and the other is that one could picture a perfectly loving being and still not believe in him. The way we define Santa Claus is as a pretty loving character, but that doesn't mean one has to believe in him.

 

[FrancesJames09]

2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.

Why? If a perfectly loving God exists why should there be no reasonable non-belief? How does the first clause lead to the second? It seems like in the second supposition there exists a non sequitur.

 

[truefiction1]

2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.

This one here is the fraudulent claim.

non-belief is the fulcrum of free-will. If the perfectly loving God's existence were manifest so that it was beyond dispute and denial, Then Truth would be undeniable and and falsehood unimaginable. Choosing between the Truth of Love and the falsehood of narcissism would not be optional choices for anyone. Freewill gone, all living creatures would be mere puppets rather than free beings in the likeness of God. Only the lack of undeniable proof of God's existence provides creatures with the opportunity to choose, either to believe (have faith) in God, or not believe (become the god of oneself -- narcissistic, proud, sinfully passionate). Reciprocal Love, we believe, is the purpose for which we are created. Puppets have no Life in them, because they choose nothing. They aren't capable of genuine reciprocal Love.

 

[AMDG]

Catholic theologian Scott Hahn addressed this in one of his classes to his theology students in Steubenville. It was on tape for awhile--believe it was sold by St. Joseph media and it was called something like "Where is God in a UnGodly World?" It was subtitled about dealing with atheism.
I remember that the tape was actually of him teaching the class. Good luck if you choose to look for the series, I don't think the series is sold anymore, but perhaps he has a paper on it.

Of course Dr. Hahn manages to come up with the solution.

 

[S.ilvio]

Sorry Chany, I'm no good to you on these deep levels but I'll supply the sponge and drinks in between rounds...

 

[Crandaddy]

I am looking for good counterarguments for the argument of nonbelief (or the problem of divine hiddenness). It’s about the only argument that seems reasonable against the existence of the theistic God.

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).

Premise 1 is a given for any mainstream Christian, so cannot be challenged reasonably. 4 is a deduction and 5 is a conclusion, so neither can be challenged because the argument is logically sound. That leaves us with 2 and 3 to challenge.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Scratch premise 2. It can't be expected that absolutely everyone is able to acquire sufficient knowledge of God to form proper belief in him. Case in point: young children being brought up in a non-theistic environment.

The OP is correct that premise 1 is indispensable to Christian theism.

 

[Struggling Sinner]

I am looking for good counterarguments for the argument of nonbelief (or the problem of divine hiddenness). It’s about the only argument that seems reasonable against the existence of the theistic God.

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).

Premise 1 is a given for any mainstream Christian, so cannot be challenged reasonably. 4 is a deduction and 5 is a conclusion, so neither can be challenged because the argument is logically sound. That leaves us with 2 and 3 to challenge.

The flaw in that atheist argument is that it leaves out the free will factor and the fact that humans can deceive ourselves. It's an argument that shows a gross ignorance of Catholic doctrine. I say Catholic doctrine because it's the original Christianity. And it's the only kind of Christianity that has had one united Church and central teaching authority with consistent doctrine for 2,000 years.

Atheists can't even say "Christians believe this" without having to either tackle the doctrines of over 30,000 different Protestant denominations. Or they can ask why Catholics believe what we do. One of the biggest miracles of the Catholic Church is her longevity. No other government on earth has lasted anywhere near as long as the Catholic Church.

Ask the atheists if Christian doctrine is so flawed how was the Catholic Church able to last this long starting out with seemingly impossible odds and with so many powerful rulers in history that did everything in their power to destroy it? God isn't a bigger version of us. The difference in intellect between us and God is infinite. Just because God is hard for our finite brains to comprehend isn't proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[AMDG]

Chany, if I recall Dr. Hahn interjected free-will into the mix. He said that that all nature must be free (since God created free will) and so the lack of good (evil) can exist simply because God is good (Premise 1). He rejected premise 4 and 5 as not being proof of the non-existence of God. Even with God being good and all loving the fact that there is evil does not negate God's existence. His reason is free will.

It's been a long time since I listened to the tape (or read Dr. Hahn's arguments against atheism). As I recall, the tape was quite interesting.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The world/universe has way too much order for it to have been chaotically self creating out of materials that existed without the materials having some 'beginning'.

God is eternal - He created order.

We do not see Him - just as in the time of the ancient ppl who requested He not speak to them... because of His perfection [and He has to be perfect to make a design of the earth, human bodies, animals and so forth and create to all work together] - anyway because of His perfection and our sinful nature - we would simply die of fright if He spoke to us... So 'for our sakes' He remains hidden.
A soul - or flesh cannot stand up to Him with sin.
He is perfection - all others would die of fright and thats not what He wants for us - until our time.

Deuteronomy is where He agrees to stop speaking to us.
Peace/.

 

[ebia]

I am looking for good counterarguments for the argument of nonbelief (or the problem of divine hiddenness). It's about the only argument that seems reasonable against the existence of the theistic God.

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).

Premise 1 is a given for any mainstream Christian, so cannot be challenged reasonably. 4 is a deduction and 5 is a conclusion, so neither can be challenged because the argument is logically sound. That leaves us with 2 and 3 to challenge.

2 is seriously problematic. It assumes that there cannot be a reason why God does not dispel "reasonable non-belief"

 

[Crandaddy]

I am fuzzy on why we have to accept premise 1.

1 doesn't need to be true really. But I think you are right in saying most Christians believe such.

Orthodox Christian theism is committed to holding that God is perfectly good, in that the perfection of whatever good may be found in the created order is of necessity ultimately found in God. Love is good; therefore, perfect love is of necessity ultimately found in God.

Chany, if I recall Dr. Hahn interjected free-will into the mix. He said that that all nature must be free (since God created free will) and so the lack of good (evil) can exist simply because God is good (Premise 1). He rejected premise 4 and 5 as not being proof of the non-existence of God. Even with God being good and all loving the fact that there is evil does not negate God's existence. His reason is free will.

4 and 5 are logical deductions from the first three premises, so they can't be rejected. The only way to defeat the argument is to reject one or more of 1-3.

 

[ebia]

Orthodox Christian theism is committed to holding that God is perfectly good, in that the perfection of whatever good may be found in the created order is of necessity ultimately found in God. Love is good; therefore, perfect love is of necessity ultimately found in God.

4 and 5 are logical deductions from the first three premises, so they can't be rejected. The only way to defeat the argument is to reject one or more of 1-3.

Orthodox Christianity agrees that God is perfectly loving. But disproving a perfectly loving God would therefore only disprove Orthodox Christianity (and other religious that hold that to be true). It doesn't prove that there is no god at all; point 1 is not a self-evident truth n

 

[everbecoming2007]

This may not help you with your argument, but I think it is a waste of time trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. It cannot be proven either way. As Christians we must simply trust and pray. The transformation that comes from this faith is the only proof you need.

 

[MKJ]

Orthodox Christian theism is committed to holding that God is perfectly good, in that the perfection of whatever good may be found in the created order is of necessity ultimately found in God. Love is good; therefore, perfect love is of necessity ultimately found in God.

Theism does not necessarily rest on whether orthodox Christianity is true though. That is a mistake all to many people make when formulating arguments against God.

It may be that the idea that God is perfectly loving is more of a conclusion than a premise.

I think the term love in that formulation is also pretty meaningless. Unless you know what it means to be perfectly loving, you cannot use the premise for anything.

That is the problem with these little logical tricks. They are not very well suited to actually thinking about things beyond the perfectly obvious.

 

[Crandaddy]

@ ebia and MKJ:

I understand the first premise to be restatable as follows: If God exists, then he is perfectly loving.

If we're talking about God proper, then we're talking about the Christian God (unless Christianity is false). If, on the other hand, we're just talking about any old “god,” then the argument isn't even interesting.

God proper would have to be perfectly loving, whether or not Christianity is true, as it is clear that love is good, and that all goodness must have its ultimate end and perfection in Him Whom all men call “God.”

 

[MKJ]

@ ebia and MKJ:

I understand the first premise to be restatable as follows: If God exists, then he is perfectly loving.

If we're talking about God proper, then we're talking about the Christian God (unless Christianity is false). If, on the other hand, we're just talking about any old “god,” then the argument isn't even interesting.

God proper would have to be perfectly loving, whether or not Christianity is true, as it is clear that love is good, and that all goodness must have its ultimate end and perfection in Him Whom all men call “God.”

We are not talking about God proper - we are talking about limited aspects of God. In this case, his existence, or lack thereof.

It is very common for people to think that if they cannot prove the Christian teaching of God, then there must be no God. That is not the case. The new Atheists use this tactic to confuse people all the time.

If any other idea of God was uninteresting and not useful, then we might as well throw out all the old pagan philosophers, who also did not believe in a loving God. But the Church has not typically done that.

I would suggest to you that many people do not become Christians in one fell swoop, especially those interested in philosophy. If is common for people to make a stop-over in something like Platonism first.

Understanding God as loving - both the fact and what that might actually mean - is something that we come to from meditating on the nature of Gods existence, or experiencing it. But that often does not happen unless we have already accepted theism.

Your post takes all kinds of things for granted - what is love, what is the good, how are they connected.... A little syllogism cannot address those questions. And it is very difficult to answer them without accepting a theistic principle. Since that is what the syllogism is meant to prove, that will not be all that useful.

 

[AMDG]

4 and 5 are logical deductions from the first three premises, so they can't be rejected. The only way to defeat the argument is to reject one or more of 1-3.

Well I said that in Dr. Hahn's theology class tape, he *added* the concept of free-will and because of that concept, 4 and 5 must be rejected, since neither take that into consideration so are *not* logical deductions afterall.