The Argument from reasonable Non-Belief (ANB)

+++ My Case +++ ::Romans:: "Augustine of Hippo developed Paul's idea that salvation was based on faith and not Works of the Law. " 1) Please notice, this quote assumes that this person knows the "Works of the Law". Therefore, this quote does not address the people who have never heard (people with reasonable unbelief) which means that Paul isn't referring to people with reasonable unbelief. 2) The idea of salvation via "Works of the Law" was an issue that Paul commonly addressed: http://www.docstoc.com... As you can see this was meant for Christians and not for everyone like my opponent implied. In Conclusion: For the above two reasons it's obvious that my opponents quote is frankly irrelevant. :: According to Paul, will unbelievers go to hell ?:: "Paul famously mourned the fate of the Jews who did not accept Christ, dreading their judgement." Why did Jews reject Christ ? Was is purely due to reason ? That is the question that we must ask because it probably wasn't. Reasons for why: Emotions: 1) Humans are emotional. 2) Emotions aren't rational. Defense: While the fact that we're emotional does not mean that we're illogical - it is possible that due to emotions one would expect obvious evidence or would cling onto what doesn't entirely make sense. As long as its possible, this is valid. Bias: 1) One see what one wants to see. 2) Many people want to see what suits them. 3) Truth may not be what suits them. Defense: Same as above. Lack of interest: 1) One may not truly care about God. Defense: You have to search in order to find. Furthermore, its very easy to become obsessed with self with this attitude hence one may simply... Well, not care about God. ::A minor problem:: "Paul actually supports P1 in the same passage as above by saying that God's existence was "manifest" and could be "clearly seen", thus saying that no-one was reasonable to doubt either in Jesus' resurrection or especially in God, and that reasonable non-belief did not exist." Yes, but to who was Paul referring ? Obviously, not to the people who never heard of the resurrection ! Now, you may say "This does not apply to me ! I have reasonable unbelief and I have heard of the resurrection.". 1) As long as reasonable unbelief exists, no matter where or for whom, and it is harmonious with the Bible. I win. 2) Are you sure that your belief is reasonable ? Yes, I do believe that its possible to have reasonable unbelief but it could very easily be bias. Nazis thought that they were reasonable ! 3) For the few that do have reasonable unbelief, could it be that there's a purpose for this ? Heck, God could have such a complex reason that I would never understand but that doesn't mean that reasonable unbelief can't exist. ::Isaiah:: ::God is able and...:: "If God is able and willing, why has He not shown Himself and why does there remain reasonable non-belief. " I'd say that he's not willing. Well, for starters he can't force anyone to believe(without breaking free will) nor could he make it obvious that he exists since then everybody would believe out of fear. Now, because he's not obvious there are arguments against him and his existences needs a leap of faith . Sadly, the result of this divine hiddenness is reasonable unbelief. Now, am I contradicting myself ? No, my opponent quoted me out of context. Here is the full sentence: " This verse shows God's willingness to reveal himself. However, in this world there are people who have never heard of Jesus. With these both things in mind we can see that finding God is not finding a Bible but rather his nature." I believe that this is self evident because all cultures know that its wrong to kill without a purpose and etcetera. So, I just was accused of saying what I didn't say. I never said "God is willing to intellectually reveal himself" but I did say "God is willing to reveal his heart". ::Psalm:: Here my opponent calls my case "unjustified" but never explains why its unjustified. After all, all I did was consider the context while my opponent was oblivious to it. He then quotes irrelevant passages and calls them relevant, for example, psalm 10:4 says " The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God". According to my opponent this an example of reasonable unbelief but according to me this is about the wicked not liking God. Finally, he says something interesting "reasonable non-belief would not exist anyway because of its negative implications." but what have we see so far ? We have seen the problem of turning away from Gods ways but have we seen anything about the evils of reasonable unbelief ? Nope. +++Attacking P1+++ "Thus he asserts that these passages are simply "wrong" - with no explanation." Untrue. You took passages out of context (the psalm for example) ! You never considered to whom Paul wrote ! Not only that but you just asserted this ! "The fact is that there are many, many other passages which indicate the consequences of non-belief " Due to the character limit and the fact that you brought this up in the last round, I must decline the challenge. I will say that there's a difference between reasonable unbelief and unbelief. "If con wishes to continue on pouring scorn on these passages," How am I putting scorn on these passages ? You can't just assert these things ! "One of the first thing one notices about happily married couples is that they recognise each other's existence" There is a difference between a God and a human being. "what is the point of Christianity?" Christianity is the knowledge of God. "NO difference between knowing God and believing or disbelieving" No, I think that life is easier with the knowledge of God and so forth. I don't claim to know why there's reasonable unbelief (though I have some ideas which I already expressed) nor do I have to. ::Basic knowledge:: 1) Basic knowledge of God is different from belief of "other minds". Hence, its easier to deny the basic knowledge of God. If this is untrue then there should never be doubt but there is (I can't prove this but many Atheists are former Christians so its quite possible that at least one of them had the "basic knowledge of God" ) meaning that "basic knowledge of God" is somehow different. 2)Basic knowledge of God and salvation is unrelated since salvation deals with the heart while basic knowledge of God deals with the mind. 3)Knowing Gods law instinctively does not equal knowing God. There's a difference between knowing what you ought to do and knowing who gave you this instinct or if anyone did. 4)Yes, according to scripture God does have free will. However, you again have missed the point ! We wouldn't have free will in the sense that no one will choose hell. People will follow God, not because they want to be with God or because they love him but because its the most profitable choice. Meaning that Gods purpose for us would be destroyed that being a loving relationship.