Scholarlink

<p>This paper demonstrates that Schellenberg is mistaken about the burden of proof concerning his Divine Hiddenness Argument against the existence of God and that his argument is unsound. In particular, I explain that Schellenberg has failed to refute the possibility that there is no non-resistant nonbeliever who would end up not having a relationship with the perfect God who knows of good reasons for the delay in starting the relationship even if we do not know what those reasons are. I also explain that Schellenberg has failed to refute the possibility that God delays the starting of the relationship for the purpose of achieving a deeper relationship for the good of the creature in a way that respects the creaturely free will. Given that the Divine Hiddenness Argument is unsound, it should not be a hindrance to believing in God and having a relationship with God.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

An evaluation of Schellenberg’s arguments regarding divine hiddenness and the no-delay condition concerning relationship with God

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月21日

查看全文
  • Andrew Ter Ern Loke

摘要

This paper demonstrates that Schellenberg is mistaken about the burden of proof concerning his Divine Hiddenness Argument against the existence of God and that his argument is unsound. In particular, I explain that Schellenberg has failed to refute the possibility that there is no non-resistant nonbeliever who would end up not having a relationship with the perfect God who knows of good reasons for the delay in starting the relationship even if we do not know what those reasons are. I also explain that Schellenberg has failed to refute the possibility that God delays the starting of the relationship for the purpose of achieving a deeper relationship for the good of the creature in a way that respects the creaturely free will. Given that the Divine Hiddenness Argument is unsound, it should not be a hindrance to believing in God and having a relationship with God.