The Hiddenness Argument for Atheism

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
J.L. Schellenberg is has lovingly made this argument, that has been around for decades, more accessible to the layperson and gives a good reason to reject theism.
  1. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
  2. If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
  3. If a perfectly loving God exists, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists (from 1 and 2).
  4. Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
  5. No perfectly loving God exists (from 3 and 4).
  6. If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
  7. God does not exist (from 5 and 6) (Schellenberg 103)
By all means engage the argument and examine whether you think its premises are more plausibly true than false and why.

For a larger discussion of the book see:

The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy's New Challenge to Belief in God // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame
 
  • Informative
Reactions: T. Taylor

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
1. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person....
Perfect love from God's position (stipulated) of perfect knowledge (which we cannot access) may not look like the "personal relationship" we want or expect.... or may not look like a personal relationship at all, to us.

(aside: these formal arguments, for or against, always seem to fail at premise one. It cracks me up.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
J.L. Schellenberg is has lovingly made this argument, that has been around for decades, more accessible to the layperson and gives a good reason to reject theism.
  1. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
  2. If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
  3. If a perfectly loving God exists, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists (from 1 and 2).
  4. Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
  5. No perfectly loving God exists (from 3 and 4).
  6. If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
  7. God does not exist (from 5 and 6) (Schellenberg 103)
By all means engage the argument and examine whether you think its premises are more plausibly true than false and why.

For a larger discussion of the book see:

The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy's New Challenge to Belief in God // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame

If some deity/deities exists, this deity/deities could 'most likely' do whatever they want. And from the looks of it, remaining 'hidden' from most appears to be his/hers/their choosing....

You would also have to assume that this deity/dietes still exists today, is even consistent in their message (practices what they preach to others), wishes to actually engage all humans for whatever reason, etc...
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I would say that 1 fails, since a personal relationship is too ambiguous a concept in this context to really be quantified. There's been too much work done on divine absence to say that this particular type of relationship looks anything like a normal one.

I'd say that 4 fails as well, since a perfectly nonresistant state of nonbelief might not be a possible psychological state. We just can't know.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I suppose you could put these items in wording which more of us could readily understand, if you want more input relevant to what they mean.
If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
In case I understand this right, which I can't guarantee > God does not just sit around hoping and being open to humans wanting to share with Him. But God is personal with every human being, in one way or another >

"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5.

So, according to God's word, God is already personally relating with each human, according to if the person is proud or humble! However, in order for us to deeply and sensitively share with God in His love > Romans 5:5 > we need how God corrects our nature, so we become capable of submitting to how He rules us in His own peace > Colossians 3:15 > Hebrews 12:4-14.

So, I find this first argument statement to be very limited, not representing who God is. But yes God is perfectly loving and kind.

If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
I think this means that someone has to be resisting God, if God is so loving and the person is not sharing with God like he or she could be. And yes all have been born in sin, so we were not able to submit to how God would share with us. We were by nature resistant > we all "were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." (in Ephesians 2:3)

So, in sin our nature was resistant. So, ones have not only been resisting, but have been resistant. So, these arguments do not refer to the God presented in the Bible, I would say. Therefore, these arguments are against one who is not God, if my representation is correct . . . I would say. The person, then, has succeeded in proving the nonexistence of some imagined one who does not exist :)

If a perfectly loving God exists, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists (from 1 and 2).
I have already offered enough about this, possibly.

Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
If all have been born in sin, then all by nature have been resistant; so there is no possibility, then, of there being certain ones who do not resist God while they do not share with Him.

By the way, if we are talking about Jesus being God, Jesus is forgiving and wants us to forgive generously and with compassion and caring and even as much sharing as someone is trustworthy for sharing. So, if anyone is not forgiving, like this, this person is resisting how God wants loving.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...a perfectly nonresistant state of nonbelief might not be a possible psychological state.....
Oh really?

Why are you putting up such a fight against unicorns and the Hawaiian gods who ride them?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would say that 1 fails, since a personal relationship is too ambiguous a concept in this context to really be quantified. There's been too much work done on divine absence to say that this particular type of relationship looks anything like a normal one.

I'd say that 4 fails as well, since a perfectly nonresistant state of nonbelief might not be a possible psychological state. We just can't know.
I think if you were to say that 4 fails, then at some point in our evolution long before monotheism emerged, our species began “resisting” something of which they had no concept, which is difficult. Perfect nonresistant nonbelief may or may not be possible now, but I think the ignorance of the ancients probably counts.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If we believe the stories in the Bible, God was once perfectly happy to show Himself. But He doesn't any more. There are plenty of explanations for why God doesn't show Himself, but the simplest one of all is: because he doesn't exist.

If God did exist, and if he was as described by the Christians - but we run into problems immediately, don't we? Even as I write, I realise there is no "God as described by the Christians" because God is described in such a lot of ways. Still, there is a generally culturally accepted idea that God is good - even if some people think that "God being good" encompasses some very different things. So, I suppose we can say: If God exists, and God loves us; and if God doesn't want to go to hell, which we will if we don't believe in Him - then why doesn't He show Himself to us?

Let me pre-empt responses immediately by saying I don't hate God, and would want to know if He existed.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
J.L. Schellenberg is has lovingly made this argument, that has been around for decades, more accessible to the layperson and gives a good reason to reject theism.
  1. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
  2. If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
  3. If a perfectly loving God exists, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists (from 1 and 2).
  4. Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
  5. No perfectly loving God exists (from 3 and 4).
  6. If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
  7. God does not exist (from 5 and 6) (Schellenberg 103)
By all means engage the argument and examine whether you think its premises are more plausibly true than false and why.

For a larger discussion of the book see:

The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy's New Challenge to Belief in God // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame
As a rigorous argument it fails, IMO, based on my premise 1 critique earlier.

But as a more intuitive appeal, its pretty strong. If this loving being wants a relationship with me, then where is he???

Its like on OK Cupid where youre told "someone likes you!".... but they never ever send you a message.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Perfect love from God's position (stipulated) of perfect knowledge (which we cannot access) may not look like the "personal relationship" we want or expect.... or may not look like a personal relationship at all, to us.

(aside: these formal arguments, for or against, always seem to fail at premise one. It cracks me up.)
Not sure why you are cracking up.

"If perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person."

God being open to a personal relationship is not univocal with,
"Perfect love from God's position (stipulated) of perfect knowledge (which we cannot access) may not look like the "personal relationship" we want or expect.... or may not look like a personal relationship at all, to us."

The first premise just says if God is loving then implication is he must be personal and open to a relationship with finite beings. It would be a strange feature to have a "personal relationship," with any person including God and be unaware of it as you suggest above. Please give us an example of a personal relationship you have had or someone else has had in history where they were unaware that they were in a personal relationship sans mental illness of course.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If some deity/deities exists, this deity/deities could 'most likely' do whatever they want. And from the looks of it, remaining 'hidden' from most appears to be his/hers/their choosing....

You would also have to assume that this deity/dietes still exists today, is even consistent in their message (practices what they preach to others), wishes to actually engage all humans for whatever reason, etc...
I think Schellenberg is trying to get at the monotheistic version and that is why he focuses on the attributes "Loving," and "Personal."

So he is going to argue that the judeo/christian/muslim God doesn't exist.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I would say that 1 fails, since a personal relationship is too ambiguous a concept in this context to really be quantified. There's been too much work done on divine absence to say that this particular type of relationship looks anything like a normal one.

I'd say that 4 fails as well, since a perfectly nonresistant state of nonbelief might not be a possible psychological state. We just can't know.
"No finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists,"
It seems that we could make some caveats of mental health like most epistemic models would suggesting properly functioning so to eliminate psychology. But it does seem to me that if I had love for an individual the way the monotheistic books talk about God's love as parent for a child, well then we would have reason to expect quite lavish attempts to make one's presence known. After all what kind of parent (the Bible's analogy not mine) would hide from their child?
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
But as a more intuitive appeal, its pretty strong. If this loving being wants a relationship with me, then where is he???
Yes it is. Especially if we describe the relationship in the terms the Old and New Testament describe the relationship so as to get over any easy escape by equivocating the concept of relationship so as to be in one without knowing (for the finite person that is).
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Not sure why you are cracking up.

"If perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person."

God being open to a personal relationship is not univocal with,
"Perfect love from God's position (stipulated) of perfect knowledge (which we cannot access) may not look like the "personal relationship" we want or expect.... or may not look like a personal relationship at all, to us."

The first premise just says if God is loving then implication is he must be personal and open to a relationship with finite beings. It would be a strange feature to have a "personal relationship," with any person including God and be unaware of it as you suggest above. Please give us an example of a personal relationship you have had or someone else has had in history where they were unaware that they were in a personal relationship sans mental illness of course.
Doesnt the Bible itself describe times when God withdraws from obvious relationship with individuals or even groups. For instance: "why have you forsaken (abandoned, deserted) me".

Perhaps, as a loving & fatherly decision, humans as a whole have been "kicked out of the house" for a few generations while we necessarily do some real world growing up on our own.

My main point: the vast gulf between Gods proposed wisdom and mine means that I'm inadequate to judge what God's most loving course of action should be. Premise 1 presumes otherwise, and so it goes way too far.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm not sure about the Quran but both Old and New Testaments suggest the relationship with God is like a parent to a child.

Given that and in order to defend the hiddenness argument further let me change Schellenberg's first premise to read:

"1 - If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship, similar to that of a parent to a child, with any finite person"
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure about the Quran but both Old and New Testaments suggest the relationship with God is like a parent to a child.

Given that and in order to defend the hiddenness argument further let me change Schellenberg's first premise to read:

"1 - If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship, similar to that of a parent to a child, with any finite person"
Well, Jesus crying "forsaken" on the cross denies God's always open to an obvious relationship.

Or this: Psalm 22:1
"My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning."

That's an example of God having withdrawn an obvious relationship with the finite human. And there's plenty others like it in the Bible. Premise one must be talking about some other proposed God, because the one in the Bible is not always available for what we normally consider a "relationship".

(Edit: the God of the Bible really does seem to defy any of the sort of the rigid premises people typically deploy in formal argument. This is to be expected if God is indeed divine, with all the mystery thats appropriate to that designation).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Not sure why you are cracking up.....
Because people trying to nail down the divine like an insect specimen is funny!

Same for when they make grandiose "rules" that implicate how things must be beyond our or any other universe (like they do with kalam). Massive overreach beyond our grasp. I find that funny. But I'm weird. I know that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I think Schellenberg is trying to get at the monotheistic version and that is why he focuses on the attributes "Loving," and "Personal."

So he is going to argue that the judeo/christian/muslim God doesn't exist.

I understand. But without critiquing the said syllogisms, it appears fairly simple for me...

If such a God does exist, and also claims to be loving, interactive, and answers prayer, but my requests for interaction in prayer/other go 'unanswered' for decades, one may only conclude a small handful of possibilities:

1. I'm too stupid to see God's attempts to contact me
2. God chose to not contact me, despite my earnest requests for decades, (maybe because he deems me not worthy)?
3. God may not exist, and a human wrote all of these assertions
4. God is not a slot machine, and God answers the call on His time, and not ours; (but then what would be the point of prayer in the first place)?

I'm sorry, but applying my conclusion, happily admitting to either committing the argument from ignorance fallacy, or, adhering to Occam's Razor; I conclude option 3.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
J.L. Schellenberg is has lovingly made this argument, that has been around for decades, more accessible to the layperson and gives a good reason to reject theism.
  1. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
  2. If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
  3. If a perfectly loving God exists, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists (from 1 and 2).
  4. Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
  5. No perfectly loving God exists (from 3 and 4).
  6. If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
  7. God does not exist (from 5 and 6) (Schellenberg 103)
By all means engage the argument and examine whether you think its premises are more plausibly true than false and why.

For a larger discussion of the book see:

The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy's New Challenge to Belief in God // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame

...Oh, the crazy things we human beings do with language. I guess If I can have a "relationship" with God-----in the colloquial sense-----then I can also go "hug a hurricane," as much sense as that phrase makes (which is nearly none). So, if this is the case, why would I ever expect things to be otherwise while here on this terrestrial mud-ball? I mean, there's what God actually does, and then there's what we 'wish' God would do, and somehow we often seem to think that if we can manipulate language in certain ways, we can force God to forever play our games, and not only that, but on our terms and in our favor.

So, yeah. Schelling is wrong.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0