Argument from nonbelief

[timmah]

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.

From a young age, humans tend to have the idea that there's something 'bigger' out there. This 'perfectly loving' God also wants to be loved by his creation, so he expects those who are willing to seek Him out based on this innate sense that there must be something more. Those who are 'non-resistantly unaware' are not proof that God does not exist, they are simply apathetic, or not searching Him out, this is the key flaw of your argument. It assumes only two possible states, actively resisting and being aware, while ignoring apathy.

On a side note (for others who've said this), God does not 'burn people in Hell forever', this idea is not backed up by the original language of the Bible and is based on mis-translations combined with Greek mythology. http://hell-is-a-myth.webs.com/hellisamyth.htm