The Argument from reasonable Non-Belief (ANB)

+++ Introduction+++ "Lastly, the rushed nature, lack of clarity and severe lack of depth in Con's response" This needs to be supported also after reading it again, I take my words back. "Con misses the point of the argument, such as his proclamation that belief in the Christian God can be reasonable" You're referring to the premise I used in order to get to my conclusion ? This had to be said so that my stance would be completely clear. This was in no way, shape or form used as an argument and I'm sure that the reader can recognize that. +++ Premise 1+++ ::Romans:: "in order to obey 'the Law', one must first recognise both that it exists and that it's importance is paramount." My opponent apparently missed this part " Gentiles ***who do not have the Law*** do instinctively the things of the Law". Also how is the importance of the law relevant ? Equation: 1. Lets assume that it's against the law to press the red button. 2. John knows the great consequence of pressing the red button but Johnny only knows that he ought not to press the red button. 3. Both press the red button. Hence, both are guilty. Granted Johnny is more likely to press the red button. Does that make him innocent ? No. Also, yes "one cannot merely pay lip service to 'the Law', but must also obey it to gain salvation " is encompassed in Roman 2:14-16. ::Matthews:: "but doesn't say that that belief is not necessary" This is implied by the "Lord, Lord" part but I must admit that I couldn't say this without the Romans quote. " if we have reason to doubt the Christian God, then surely the fact that He wills us to do things will become mute" This ought to be elaborated. ::My opponents passages:: John 14:6 : What about those who were born before Jesus ? How can a prophet of God (Isaiah for example) go to hell ? He can't. Therefore, my opponents interpretation is incorrect. Another interpretation is that Jesus died for our sins and if that didn't happen then we all would go to hell. John 3:18 : Same argument as before. The alternative interpretation is that this verse is talking about people with beliefs that aren't purely based on reason. This is supported by "believeth not is condemned already" because this implies a person who is unwilling to change his world view despite whatever evidence or reason is presented. Mark 16:16 : "believeth and is baptized shall be saved" How can someone who has never heard of Christianity hear of baptism ? Clearly, this is excluding the group who have never heard of baptism. Why ? Because these people have reasonable unbelief in Christianity, after all how can you believe in something that doesn't exist. Why should other groups with reasonable unbelief be included ? "Hell" Seeing how I support the idea of unbelievers being saved, this is of no problem for me. "Also, reasonable non-belief prevents us from having a personal relationship with God" Response: "2. There is no contradiction in the statement 'X loves all Y's personality traits but X does not believe that Y exists' ". ::Other Christians:: I thought you were debating me ? If you think that this argument may work against other Christians or religious people then feel free to debate them. ::My own arguments:: Psalm 10: "the message of Psalm 10 is that of the dangers of straying from God" I don't see from where my opponent got this, even his own source says "This description represents, as in a mirror, a lively image of a widely corrupt and disorganised state of society". Moreover, I don't see how this is an argument, surely if Psalm 10 used your title "dangers of straying from God" then this would be about the love of God and love of sin. I have already shown how one can love God without knowing him: "2. There is no contradiction in the statement 'X loves all Y's personality traits but X does not believe that Y exists' ". "reasonable non-belief would be completely against God's desires" I bet that we all would want to be in the garden of Eden where we are in paradise and we can communicate with God, however, there's that problem of sin. Since its established that God would rather have everyone know him we can reasonably conclude that sin is somehow preventing this. Also, what you love is more important for God, as I said before, you don't have to know who God is to love him via what he represents. Isaiah 45: "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker" Striving against someone does not equal not believing in someone. I honestly fail to see how this is relevant. "I have not spoken in secret" This is the entire verse: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right." Isaiah 45:19 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. ::Psalm 14:1:: There are two types of foolishness: intellectual and moral. When one reads the entire sentence it becomes evident that this has to do with moral foolishness. I would further argue that when one says "There is no God" he is about to sin unless this is some strange hobby that I've never heard of. Therefore, this verse shows how sinners like to dismiss authority and the excuses they make. +++ Other +++ ::Attacking your 3 defenses of Premise 1 which were presented in the first round:: To be honest, I thought that I dealt with this already, however, it doesn't feel good to be accused of something, hence this section. Granted I didn't deal with "Some more reasons" part. A) Knowing the Christian God "Now clearly, if the Christian God exists as defined, He wants a loving relationship with us, & threats to that relationship are threats to our own salvation, & as 1 Timothy 2:4 states, as He wants us all to be saved, then threats to this salvation seem contradictory to His desires." B) The Consequence of belief "humans who have inculpably been lead astray by reasonable non-belief will endure an unimaginable penalty." Both are dealt with my view that you don't have to believe in order to go to heaven. Also, I have already shown how you can have a loving relationship with God without knowing God "2. There is no contradiction in the statement 'X loves all Y's personality traits but X does not believe that Y exists' ". C) Some more reasons Why should God provide a properly basic knowledge of himself ? This is grace and not everybody receives grace. Nevertheless, you need faith to believe (or else there's no free will) hence this "properly basic" belief was doubted by the same people who have it. Meaning that one can have reasonable nonbelief even with "properly basic belief".