Argument from nonbelief

[Aielyn]

Jay520 said:

Aielyn said:

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.

1. Fair

2. Bad analogy. Unless air was (a) all-powerful, and (b) wanted everyone to have the opportunity to become aware of its existence. An all-powerful and all-loving God would want to have a loving relationship with every human; and would thus give everyone a fair and reasonable opportunity to form such a relationship (see below).

3. For one, people who have never been introduced to God, among others too.

2. Analogy doesn't require every subtle feature to apply, only the general properties. The relevant property, here, is that air is ever-present and yet invisible, and essentially necessary for life.

3. One doesn't necessarily have to identify the presence as "god" in order to be aware of it. It is fallacious to assume that awareness of a relationship means understanding of that relationship. Some could just as easily think that the "presence" is really their own courage, or their conscience, or their inner voice, depending on how that awareness is supposed to manifest itself in those who do believe (not being a believer, myself, I can't really be sure).