Argument from nonbelief

[Aielyn]

Jay520 said:

I'll keep it short and post a short version of the argument from Wikipedia:

1. If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3. If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then there no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4. If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6. No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7. God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

What do you think of this argument? Good or bad?

I guess you could say that God doesn't have to be perfectly loving if he does exist, but I think the majority of theists believe otherwise. Everything else seems valid to me.

I see three flaws.

1. Why must an existing god be "perfectly loving"? One could certainly envisage a god that is capable of... forsaking a person.

2. Why must a god being open to personal relationship with each person necessarily mean that, in the absence of resistance, they must be aware of the relationship? That's like suggesting that, because some people weren't aware of the existence of air despite their dependence on it, therefore air can't exist.

3. Can you prove that there exists people who are neither resistant nor aware of this god's existence? Otherwise, that predicate remains untested.

Mind you, I lack a belief in any deity. Without evidence supporting existence, I default to the position of non-existence. But one cannot prove nonexistence, just as one cannot prove that there has never existed a unicorn.