The Argument from reasonable Non-Belief (ANB)

Intro I have to say that I found Con's response rather disappointing, and as he admitted, it was a rather rushed response, though after having 2 weeks to prepare, I'm not sure why. The main reason I say this is that even if I grant his entire post, my argument still stands. There were at least 4 lines of support from P1, and he only responded to one of them, and then give an additional reason for doubting P1, meaning that at best his rebuttal is only partially effective. Concession of P2 Additionally, we should note that Con (after indicating otherwise initially) seems to accept P2 - that reasonable non-belief in Christianity does exist, thus our only contention seems to be P1 - that if the Christian God exists, we have good reason to think reasonable non-belief in Christianity does exist. Defending P1 "Belief in God and Jesus is not necessary for salvation." Con gives 2 passages in support of this claim, the first being Romans 2:14-16. The basic point of this passage is that one cannot merely pay lip service to "the Law", but must also obey it to gain salvation (1). The problem here is that such a response was already anticipated by my first post, when I said that belief in the Christian God was a NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT CONDITION for salvation. So even here we have a confirmation of P1 rather than a denial of it - in fact, in order to obey "the Law", one must first recognise both that it exists and that it's importance is paramount. So rather than undercut P1, Con unwittingly proves my point, and we have further reason to suppose that if the Christian God desires us to know that He exists, then we should expect to know it. As for Matthew 7:21, this again tells us that belief is not sufficient for salvation, but doesn't say that that belief is not necessary, so similar points apply here - that only those who do "the will of the Father" will enter Heaven, but if we have reason to doubt the Christian God, then surely the fact that He wills us to do things will become mute (2). In fact, this passage as actually used in evidence FOR the view that unbelievers go to Hell, so Con shoots himself firmly in the foot here (3) Yet again, this actually strengthens my hand here, but lets just spell out some of the passages which contradict the view that belief in God (or Jesus) is not necessary for salvation: John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (4) John 3:18 - He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (5) Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (6) Note here also that even if I granted Con's position, we would still seem to agree that IF non-belief were punishable by Hell, THEN the ANB would be justified, meaning that it would still be a formidable argument for many, if not most, Christians who do believe that Hell awaits unbelievers. There are various other Bible passages as well, but given the nature of Con's belief in the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God, even one of these passages is enough, and with his own passages actually supporting my position, it is clear that P1 is actually better supported now that it was in the previous round. Also, reasonable non-belief prevents us from having a personal relationship with God, is seemingly incompatible with reformed epistemology and encroaches on our free-will. Now, when even one of these points is enough to establish P1, then Con not responding to 3 of them (which were posted in R1) is grounds for conceding P1, no matter how good Con's rebuttal is to the point above. Thus, we have good reasons for supposing that P1 is justified, and that the conclusion follows - that we have good reason to believe that the Christian God does not exist. Con's argument against P1 - The compatibility between non-belief and God Here Con essentially hovers over my grounding for P1 in order to make his own case, using 2 bible passages to support his contention that reasonable non-belief is compatible with the Christian God. Again, Con seems to quote a verse which destroys his own case, as the message of Psalm 10 is that of the dangers of straying from God (7). If the wickedness of unbelief is that described by Psalm 10, then surely reasonable non-belief would be completely against God's desires, and would again strengthen the reasons we would have for upholding P1. Isaiah 45 used by Con again completely backfires, saying, "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker" and "I have not spoken in secret" (8). So yet again, Con actually makes my own argument for me here, and thus, after seemingly conceding P2, has no alternative but to accept the conclusion, and consequently affirm the resolution of the debate. But even worse, the Bible actually denies that atheism ( a particular brand of non-belief) can in fact be reasonable: Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none of them that doeth good. (9) So here we have yet another passage which condemns atheism as necessarily foolish, thus supporting P1 - If the Christian God exists, we have good reason to think that reasonable non-belief does not exist. Conclusion After challenging me to debate this topic, it seems that Con shows no real desire to get to grips with its demands, not even responding to 3 of the 4 points I raised to support P1. Furthermore, the majority of points he did raise actually supported my case better than his own, with none of his bible quotations actually supporting a denial of P1. Lastly, the rushed nature, lack of clarity and severe lack of depth in Con's response seem to show not just an unwillingness to engage with the ANB presented, but there are clear markers that Con misses the point of the argument, such as his proclamation that belief in the Christian God can be reasonable - this is both completely compatible and utterly irrelevant irrelevant to ANB. Sources (1) http://www.preceptaustin.org... (2) http://bible.cc... (3) http://apostolicrevelation.blogspot.com... (4) http://bible.cc... (5) http://bible.cc... (6) http://bible.cc... (7) http://www.ccel.org... (8) http://www.biblegateway.com... (9) http://scripturetext.com...