Argument from nonbelief

[DeadNotSleeping]

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.

1. For the purposes of evaluating this train of thought, this assumption can be left as is.

2. This introduces a second assumption that is left untested. 

3. There lacks an explanation why this must be so.  A third assumption is introduced and it is left untested.  Moreover, there can is substantial room to argue against this claim.

4. This is not necessarily true.  If it is true, it must always be true, and the reasoning for that must be proven.  This hasn't happened because right now there are three assumptions in this sequence and none of them are being adequately justified.  Using 2 and 3 to form this conclusion is subscribing to logical fallacies.

5. This is accurate.

6. This conclusion is not sound; to be sound, all premises have to be true and premises 2-4 have not been proven true.

7. This conclusion is illogical based on the unsound conclusion of 6.  It also fails to explain why a god cannot exist if it is not perfectly loving.

 

This is a bad, illogical argument.