# Schellenberg's argument from reasonable nonbelief



## ReformedChristian (Jul 16, 2010)

I recently had a debate with an atheist who claimed Christianity is false based on Schellenberg's argument from reasonable nonbelief. The arguement goes as follows:

1.If there is a God, he is perfectly loving. 
2.If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur. 
3.Reasonable nonbelief occurs. 
4.No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3). 
5.Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4). 

How could one go about refuting this?


----------



## T.A.G. (Jul 16, 2010)

1. The argument for Christianity is not based off anything other than everyone knows the God of the Bible, it is not because of an argument but because everyone in their heart of hearts is a Christian theist

2. God decreed the fall/evil for good thus when adam fell as mans covenant Representative, the human race fell! With that, depravity and sin not only affected the body but the mind as well (romans 1:20-22) 

Instead of proving God exist, show him romans 1:20-22 and pointing out the areas in his life that show this

for example, say he is a materialist
He stated loving as a good thing, why is loving a good thing? You cannot even account for a moral personal immutable standard! only Christian theism can
He is trying to reason in a reasonable way yet he cannot even account for an immutable logical obligation to reason in a logical manner
If all is matter then there is no beauty, love, etc all is really just one, which of course if this is true morality, logic, cannot exist
He doesnt really believe that all he is, is simply matter/highly evolved protoplasm. He pressupose person dignity of men and freedom in thinking which if all is matter and all matter is governed/controlled by natural law then his thoughts are not "his," its just an illusion like everything else. Kinda reminds you of Hinduism


----------



## MRC (Jul 16, 2010)

(2) is an incorrect assumption. We cannot know what "loving" is until we know God as He has revealed himself in His Scriptures. God is love, if you do not know God you cannot know what love is. According to the Scriptures, love is electing some for eternal life, that do not deserve such a gift, by reconciling the damned to Himself through His own sacrifice on the cross. Those not savingly elect (reprobate) do not have unreasonable unbelief but are rather getting what they wanted since their birth, rejection of their Creator.


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 18, 2010)

My #2 has as much validity as Schellenberg's. Both are arbitrary and do not prove or disprove the existence of God. Also, premise 1 is too vague. What is the definition of perfectly loving? 

1.If there is a God, he is perfectly loving. 
2.If a perfectly loving God exists, flying pigs do not exist. 
3.Flying pigs do not exist. 
4.A perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3). 
5.Hence, there is a God (from 1 and 4).


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 18, 2010)

ReformedChristian said:


> I recently had a debate with an atheist who claimed Christianity is false based on Schellenberg's argument from reasonable nonbelief. The arguement goes as follows:
> 
> 1.If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
> 2.If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
> ...


 
You have to attack 3. I think the argument given is valid but not sound because 3 is not true.

CT


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 18, 2010)

> 2.If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur



The second half does not follow the other. How loving a God is cannot be made to cause belief or non-belief. An example is Allah who is revealed to be capricious -- he can change his mind (how loving is that?). But the Muslim profess some kind of belief in Allah.

Indeed, the Bible teaches that man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), so it doesn't matter how loving Jesus is, man in his fallen estate chooses to rebel against God.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 18, 2010)

It is rather ironic, to me at least, that an atheist presumes to know what a divine being must be, and then proceeds to 'prove' that the idol in his mind cannot exist. It exists in his mind as a concept so in a very limited sense, it is real because it must have come from somewhere. If it is merely random, then so is he and so is any argument he makes: it is completely worthless and void of meaning, so why even waste time arguing? If it is not random, it must have some basis and then he should seek to discover if there is a god who is not an idol, but personal and knowable. 



Furthermore #2 is a _non sequitur_. It does not follow that even if there is a perfectly loving God that there would no reasonable unbelief. Love, however perfect, can be rejected, refused or ignored when it is only an outward emotion or power expressed by one being to another. Only if this perfect love is internal and irresistible in every person capable of receiving it could it _possibly _overcome reasonable unbelief (hence Calvinism's definition of God's saving love as only being directed to and efficacious in the elect). If the latter then we could only say that God's love failed, that it was not perfect, but we still would not have proved that God did not exist.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 18, 2010)

I don't really understand the argument.

What does Schellenberg - whoever he is - mean by "reasonable non-belief"? How does he define "reasonable non-belief"?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 18, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> I don't really understand the argument.
> 
> What does Schellenberg - whoever he is - mean by "reasonable non-belief"? How does he define "reasonable non-belief"?


 
Basically that one can maintain rationality and choose to either believe that there is no God (Atheism) or say that one is just not sure (Agnostic).

CT

---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------




jwithnell said:


> > 2.If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur
> 
> 
> 
> The second half does not follow the other. How loving a God is cannot be made to cause belief or non-belief. An example is Allah who is revealed to be capricious -- he can change his mind (how loving is that?). But the Muslim profess some kind of belief in Allah.



The claim is that a loving God would make it so that it is unreasonable to not believe in said God. If non believe is unreasonable then that is not God's fault that is a defect in the non believer.



> Indeed, the Bible teaches that man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), so it doesn't matter how loving Jesus is, man in his fallen estate chooses to rebel against God.


 
What you are saying here is that reasonable nonbelief does not occur and that rebellion against God is rebellion against reason. That is what Schellenberg is asking you to show.

CT


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 18, 2010)

ReformedChristian said:


> I recently had a debate with an atheist who claimed Christianity is false based on Schellenberg's argument from reasonable nonbelief. The arguement goes as follows:
> 
> 1.If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
> 2.If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
> ...


 
You have to force him to bring out the hidden premises of the argument by defining his terms (i.e. God, perfectly loving, reasonable nonbelief, etc.) and justifying those definitions. Then you can have a meaningful dialogue as you demonstrate the difference between his view of God and the Christian God.


----------



## goodnews (Jul 18, 2010)

ReformedChristian said:


> I recently had a debate with an atheist who claimed Christianity is false based on Schellenberg's argument from reasonable nonbelief. The arguement goes as follows:
> 
> 1.If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
> 2.If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
> ...



Christopher, I think first you'd have to make him define what he means by a "perfectly loving" God. I doubt he would say anything more than a God who doesn't "allow" anything "bad" to happen to anyone. Of course that definition has a lot of flawed assumptions. Also, everyone's definition of "perfectly loving" would be different, particularly over time, and amongst the many cultures. So, if the notion of a perfectly loving God is so subjective how could we possibly, objectively speaking, define what a perfectly loving God is from our finite perspectives. The only way to objectively know the various attributes of the God of all creation is if He condescended to explain it to us at our level. There's only one developed revelation that is satisfying and that's found in the Bible.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 18, 2010)

First there is no reasonable nonbeleif, the atheist inhabites a world created by God therefore any nonbeleif is not reasonable. To maintain that nonbeleif is reasonable in a created world would so destroy the notion reasonableness as to make it absurd as a concept. Premise 1 is invalid because it assumes a neccessary attribute of a being without proving that the attribute is neccessary. Premise 2 is invalid because it does not follow that a perfectly loving God would not allow for unbeleif, in fact it makes more sense to say that a perfectly loving God would allow unbeleif out of perfect love, whatever that is. Premise 3 is absurd because in order to validate it you would have to prove that reasonable unbeleif does occur, but if it is reasonable unbeleif than the person in question would have to independently disprove the existance of God, whom this argument is trying to disprove in the first place. Premises 4-5 are invalid because premises 1-3 are invalid thus you have one big reason to believe that nonbeleif is in fact unreasonable!


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 19, 2010)

*Quote from CT*


> Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
> I don't really understand the argument.
> 
> What does Schellenberg - whoever he is - mean by "reasonable non-belief"? How does he define "reasonable non-belief"?
> Basically that one can maintain rationality and choose to either believe that there is no God (Atheism) or say that one is just not sure (Agnostic).



The whole argument that there is no God/god would be proven true if this assertion that there is "reasonable unbelief" is true. This just begs the question. If there is truly reasonable unbelief in God, then of course God doesn't exist. 

The atheist and Theist are both using reason to debate this subject. 

So then we go back to Kant's transcendental approach which was adopted to effect by Van Til, and ask if we both agree that reason exists what are the preconditions for reason to exist. What needs to transcend reason, if anything, for reason to exist?

Does a Universe governed by impersonal and irrational chance/fate provide the basis on which human reason could arise or the conditions in which it could thrive, even as a fond illusion?


----------



## Zenas (Jul 19, 2010)

ReformedChristian said:


> I recently had a debate with an atheist who claimed Christianity is false based on Schellenberg's argument from reasonable nonbelief. The arguement goes as follows:
> 
> 1.If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
> 2.If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
> ...



Define "perfectly loving".


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 19, 2010)

Wow, this is great. It's a big softball down the pipe for the transcendental argument of presuppositionalists, who are out to disprove number 3. Perfect!


----------



## cih1355 (Jul 19, 2010)

Premise# 3 is false. Unbelief is unreasonable. According to the Psalm 14:1, the fool says in his heart that God does not exist.


----------

