More than anyone else, Schellenberg has shaped the contemporary debate over arguments from nonbelief. The main argument from his 1993 book can be stated as follows:
(1) There are people who are capable of relating personally to God but who, through no fault of their own, fail to believe.
(2) If there is a personal God who is unsurpassably great, then there are no such people.
(3) So, there is no such God (from 1 and 2).
For the defense of premise (2), Schellenberg’s reasoning provides the following subargument:
(2a) If there is a personal God who is unsurpassably great, then there is a personal God who is unsurpassably loving.
(2b) If there is a personal God who is unsurpassably loving, then for any human person H and any time t, if H is at t capable of relating personally to God, H has it within H’s power at t to do so (i.e., will do so, just by choosing), unless H is culpably in a contrary position at t.
(2c) For any human person H and any time t, H has it within H’s power at t to relate personally to God only if H at t believes that God exists.
(2d) So, if there is a personal God who is unsurpassably great, then for any human person H and any time t, if H is at t capable of relating personally to God, H at t believes that God exists, unless H is culpably in a contrary position at t (from 2a through 2c).
(2d) is tantamount to premise (2) of the main argument.
In his post-1993 writings, Schellenberg clarifies that he means his claims about God, love, and relationship to be necessary truths. Moreover, the main argument of his 2007a replaces talk of “culpability” with talk of “resistance”. (“I now see this focus on culpability and inculpability as a mistake”; 2015a: 54.) And he emphasizes “meaningful conscious relationship”. Finally, his 2015a and 2015b focus on the “openness” of “a perfectly loving God” to “positively meaningful” and “reciprocal conscious relationship”. Thus, the latest version of the argument (slightly condensed):
(4) Necessarily, if God exists, then God perfectly loves such finite persons as there may be.
(5) Necessarily, if God perfectly loves such finite persons as there may be, then, for any capable finite person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship with S at t.
(6) Necessarily, if for any capable finite person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship with S at t, then, for any capable finite person S and time t, it is not the case that S is at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
(7) There is at least one capable finite person S and time t such that S is or was at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
(8) So, it is not the case that God exists. (from 4 through 7)
But being omniscient, they already know the answer to these questions.
Asking a question presupposes not knowing something. An omniscient being cannot ask any questions. — Banno
And how can one know what it's like to be ignorant if they have always known everything? It's a paradox. — Benj96
...and take your argument off on a holiday from reason.It is possible to conceive of a consciousness that doesn't think in the same way that we do. — Benj96
I imagine that the consciousness operates as a system on such a vast magnitude of time and space that its virtually impossible to see anything we typically associate with consciousness in it, because we are totally biased towards our own version of it, and we are so brief and reactive and densely packed complexity within the vast universe. — Benj96
So can you recognise it as a mind, or not? If you can, then it has stuff in common with the minds with which we are familiar; and if you can't , then by that very fact you cannot conclude that it is a mind. — Banno
Yes. I can. If they're omniscient and omnipotent, they may desire to know what it's like not to be so. Or to at least create the illusion of such for a moment to explore those experiences.
To be less self aware. Perhaps to be multiple selves. — Benj96
But being omniscient, they already know the answer to these questions.
Asking a question presupposes not knowing something. An omniscient being cannot ask any questions. — Banno
The OP's to each of my threads serve just such a purpose... Now if folk would just stop disagreeing with them... — Banno
SO wanna coauthor a book? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.