Because there are Nonbelievers, God does not exist.

First of all you are trying to box in a debate on Theology based on ONE religion, yet you don't address the theology of that religion factually. I am not a Christian, but I am a "believer", and I will argue my points based on my belief in science, logic, and God as the author and/or judge of both- even if this may diminish my belief in God to a definition equalling that of nature itself. I will address your points, but I will also try to bring up my own as comprehensive as possible. You say: 1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving. -This information is not based on anything. You can't pigeonhole an argument for or against God based on a belief for which you provide no factual references. God is a being referred to in every religion, and not every Theology teaches that God is "perfectly loving". Furthermore, you don't give a definition for what you believe to be "perfectly loving". Indeed science itself is perfect, but not "loving", yet it does not discriminate with it's laws. I propose that if God is the judge and lawmaker of science, and science is perfect, then at least in this argument God is perfect. Because the laws of science do not discriminate and are constant and perfect to our understanding, and only imperfect if we do not understand those laws, we can then logically say that science, and therefore God, are also "perfectly loving", though your term lacks a definition. You say: 2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable non belief does not occur. -Based on what? Perfect science exists, yet throughout history the perfect laws of science have been questioned, tested, ignored, challenged, and even denounced- let alone "not believed". If this can happen with something like science- which would be the logical interpretation of God's laws if God in fact existed, then why wouldn't this be true for the existence of God himself? Indeed if one aspect of God as described in the Bible were true, that he is an invisible God, then wouldn't this one fact cause disbelief? I believe argument #3 is also properly rebutted in this argument. You say: 4. No perfectly loving God exists -Though this argument is logical based on your assessment, I have proved your assessment to be flawed. For one, a "perfectly loving" God is an opinionated description of God, and/or human attributes are being applied here. Love is a feeling, not a state of consciousness, awareness, or existence. If God is "loving" it is because we, as animal humans with animal emotions, interpret the interactions of God as those of a "loving" God. God would not have to be described as "perfectly loving" in order to exist, and the lack of reasonable non-belief is not a pre-requisite for one's existence. You say: 5. Hence, there is no God -Though you seem very happy with your arguments, and feel that you have proved your point I feel you have not come even close. All scientific logic teaches me that science, nature, and the universe has laws by which every form of matter must abide by. As a human, my understanding of laws teaches me that laws are in place because they should not be broken, and if they are broken there is a consequence which is in harmony with those laws... in other words science maintains it's balance the same way society does- by having laws and enforcing them, and applying consequences to the disregard of those laws. For example- split an atom and there is a catastrophic chemical and physical reaction. If science, like society, is governed by laws, then it is at least humanly logical to assume that these laws have a governor, author, and judge. If your mind would only allow this judge to be called "science" itself, then so be it. I call the judge, author, and governor of science God because my logic compels me to do so.