Does the existence of rational non-belief mitigate against the existence of God?

Question

As I understand it, Schellenberg's argument runs roughly as follows:

1) If there is a God, He is all-powerful and all-loving.
2) An all-loving and all-powerful God will want to be in the closest possible relationship with all His creatures for all Eternity.
3) In order for such an eternal relationship to come about, there must be no rational non-belief. (i.e., all those who sincerely try to enter into a relationship with God must be able to do so)
4) Therefore, if there is an all-powerful, all-loving God, there must be no rational non-belief. (from 2 and 3)
5) Rational non-belief exists.
6) Therefore, there is not an all-powerful, all-loving God. (from 4 and 5)
7) Therefore, there is no God. (from 1 and 6)

This seems to me to be a very powerful argument, and I can't think of any way around it, except for attacking premise 5 (which I am honestly not inclined to do). A Calvinist, of course, would attack premise 2 (which I also would wish to avoid). Any thoughts?

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion - in fact, I disagree with it. That's why I'm interested in trying to find a weakness in the argument. And it is a strong argument: structurally sound, and all the premises - I think - are true. Arguing that we know nothing about God doesn't help, or that premise one contains assumptions, because what then do we mean by God in the first place?

Arnon: I disagree. "Rational non-belief" means that one comes to the conclusion, on the basis of the (limited) evidence available to one, that there is no God. Many people do this, and I find it difficult to believe that they are all deceiving themselves or morally guilty for their own blindness. You may feel they are, but in that case you are simply denying premise 5 by saying than all non-belief is irrational. I see no evidence to support this, but I cannot imagine what kind of evidence one would conscript to prove or disprove it.

Ah yes, the old free-will argument. Which is fine, except that we come back to premise 5 - surely God could give us free-will to choose or reject Him, while
making His presence a little more obvious to those wishing to "find" Him.

Answer 1

I think Calvin would attack every premise but 5).

- God is all-powerful, but not all loving, if he hated Esau. The Bible is filled with God's wrath, I don't know where Schellenberg got the idea that God was all loving. Whatever the reason, Calvin would only support the idea that God loves his own, predestined and foreknown before the foundations of the world.

- God does not necessarily desire to be in the company of ALL his creatures. Israel was his chosen people. The "new Israel" of the New Testament, in Calvin's view, has the same chosen status. No difference between the Old and New Testament. God's desire to save all of mankind is an Arminian viewpoint only.

- The premise of "no rational non-belief" is flatly denied by Calvinism. In fact, it's just the opposite, no one of his own ability can look to God for salvation. Your statement that "all those who sincerely try to enter into a relationship with God must be able to do so" is errant on two grounds -- God must take a prescient role in salvation, not a responsive one; and sanctification itself must come from a Holy Spirit working in man's heart, rather than man on his own being able to perform any works that he can claim as earning merits toward heaven.

- Therefore rational non-belief not only exists, but is the only ability that man has save for the grace of God.

- This yields a God who is all-powerful and loving of his own, and it yields a damaged man, federally represented by Adam's fallen nature.

- Therefore God exists, and rules his universe, saving some, but not all. Ephesians 2:8 sums it up nicely: "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God".

And Schellenberg's logic falls apart accordingly. However, Arminianism has a tough challenge with his arguments, as I'm sure you already know.

Answer 2

The flaw is in number 5. You presume that if there is God, it would be rational to disbelieve.
Only if no God exists is it rational to disbelieve. The whole argument is a circular catch-22 and only serves the intent of the author. It does not follow independent logic, since I can change the result by refuting proposition 5 with the condition of either reality.
In addition there is another point of order. Would an all powerful , all loving being need anything besides himself and, if he wanted #2 and 3 would he not insure the success of this plan?
So, I propose this is not a logical argument.

Answer 3

I disagree with how you've worded 4-- Yes, those who sincerely try to enter into a relationship with God can, but does that mean that everyone has to or is required to enter into a relationship with God?

I'd also like to add one more premise-- God gave the gift of choice to mankind. We have the freedom to choose to enter into a relationship with God or to refuse a relationship with him.

I believe that even more than a close relationship with us, God wants us to grow, learn and progress. This can't happen without choice and consequence.

Answer 4

If you believe that is a powerful argument you would have fit in as a jurist on the OJ trial. Somehow, I guess the point your making is that for God to exist, non belief can't exist. Yeah, there are people who believe the moon landing was faked so I guess they must be right. That whole argument lacks logic and you call it "powerful". Hey, I want to sell you this bridge I know about in Brooklyn...

Answer 5

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear”
- Thomas Jefferson

If a founding father believed in a rational non-belief 200 years ago, who is anyone to disagree? What kind of God would ever have to kill??? Yet the God in the bible does so on a scale that not even Hitler achieved! If God is all loving, then why does he have our blood on his hands?

Answer 6

I think any weakness would be in #2, in that it assumes to know the actions of something based on the character of something that doesn't exist. Simply reading the atrocities committed by any god in almost any mythos shows they do not meet our standards of loving or all-powerful, for all powerful would have no fear of humans building towers, worshiping the competition, or living forever.

Answer 7

1.) Is an assumption. God may not be all powerful nor all loving.

7.) Does not follow from 6.) Proving god is not all powerful and all loving does not prove god does not exist.

God may be all powerful and malevolent.

Answer 8

It doesn't refute an evil or indifferent god. Indeed, an honest view of the world would tell the theist that the only kind of god which *could* exist is one which was either evil or indifferent.

Answer 9

The arguement you give is seriously flawed. We can make no assumptions about God; he does not conform to our ideas of what a god should be.

Answer 10

i attack it because its a totally physical viewpoint ... God is spirit and truth and the understanding of God must be spiritual.