What is the argument from disbelief?

Answer

The argument from disbelief posits that the existence of sincere non-believers indicates that God cannot exist. It implies that there are numerous individuals who would believe in God if they were presented with adequate evidence. The absence of compelling evidence for these individuals is viewed as evidence itself that there is no benevolent God who would offer such proof, or that such proof does not exist. This assertion is also known as “reasonable non-belief,” “inculpable disbelief,” or occasionally “the philosophical objection.”

In essence, the argument from disbelief contends that if God were real, He would manifest Himself in such a clear manner that anyone genuinely seeking Him would already have faith.

There are two main assumptions underlying the argument from disbelief, both of which are clearly unfounded. The first assumption is the existence of an objective, sincere, and open-minded non-believer. The second assumption is that God has not provided “sufficient” evidence to lead to the truth. Additionally, there is a third premise, somewhat implicit in the argument, concerning whether God is obliged to meet a certain minimum standard for revelation. The rationale behind this assertion is exceedingly weak, as this same basic principle is seldom, if ever, applied to any other subject.

The most explicit refutation of the fallacy of the argument from disbelief is found directly in Scripture itself. The book of Romans directly addresses this argument, refuting both flawed premises unequivocally:

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

“Therefore, God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—Who is forever praised. Amen.”

— Romans 1:18–25 (emphasis added)

Briefly stated, disbelief is not ultimately grounded in sincerity or even ignorance but in a fundamental refusal to follow the truth. In fact, the Bible indicates that what’s happening is the suppression of the truth. Those who do not believe in God may be “sincere” in the sense that they legitimately do not believe in God. But the evidence God has placed in human experience is more than enough for everyone to be following it to the same logical conclusion. Even the most sincere atheist, at some point, is insincerely and deliberately rejecting or ignoring some level of evidence for God. They are brushing aside or choosing not to pursue the things “clearly seen, being understood from what is made” «For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: », (Romans 1:20).

Beyond that, Scripture indicates that God has put evidence of Himself in nature «The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth His handywork. », (Psalm 19:1) and will respond to anyone who actually seeks Him.

Examine Him (Matthew 7:7-8). The Bible also elucidates how a person’s intention always supersedes evidence: a person must desire to discover the truth before evidence or logic can have any impact «If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. », (John 7:17). No quantity of evidence will ever persuade a person who is resistant (Luke 16:19-31), and the more a person asserts, “I just need more evidence,” the more he’s demonstrating that no evidence will ever truly suffice «But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: », (Matthew 12:39).

Experience corroborates the Bible’s instruction on this matter. Logic and experience render it entirely reasonable to state that there is no such thing as a “non-resistant atheist.” A simple analogy to this is the present-day group of flat-earthers.

Certain individuals in the contemporary world insist that the earth is flat. Despite myths suggesting otherwise, humanity as a whole understood that the earth was spherical long before Christopher Columbus. Natural evidence accessible even in the eras of Old Testament authors and Greek philosophers was clear and was observed and interpreted. Those using the argument from disbelief against God would be reluctant to assert that modern flat-earthers are “open” to believing in a spherical planet. Or that they are likely to alter their perspectives when presented with evidence. Both of those scenarios may be plausible in theory, but not in reality.

Despite personal assertions of “sincerity,” experience indicates that belief in a flat earth necessitates some degree of deliberate intent. Certain fac

Errors have to be purposefully ignored, brushed off, or turned upside down. In other words, the typical flat-earther who claims to be “open” to evidence simply is not. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence, archetypical flat-earthers excuse it, deny it, or ignore it.

Furthermore, logic indicates that the existence of an open-but-uninformed flat-earther would not prove the earth is flat. This reveals the third false premise of the argument from non-belief: that God must provide a certain level of evidence, according to a certain timeline. This premise fails because it’s rooted in the same problem that leads to atheism in the first place: an assumption that God must do as the atheist would do. A person can be sincere, and sincerely wrong; God is not required to heed some arbitrary line humanity draws in the sand.

This is not to say that conversion—either for flat-earthers or atheists—is impossible. But, in almost every case, converted atheists admit that at least part of their problem was a deliberate unwillingness to believe. They recognize, after the fact, that they were allowing prejudice and preference to override evidence. Quotes from famous atheists are rife with emotion, angst, and outright admission that they do not want God to be real. This is why emotional arguments are by far the leading force in resisting belief in the existence of God.

Moreover, we have extensive categories of evidence for the existence of God. These evidences, in and of themselves, help to disprove the argument from disbelief. After all, if God has not provided “enough” evidence for a sincere person, what are former atheists who claim that evidence led them to convert to Christianity responding to? The only possible defense for the argument from disbelief, at that point, is to argue in a circle, claiming that former atheists are being fooled, while staunch non-believers are simply not as gullible, ever-shifting the definitions for sincerity and evidence.

Furthermore, common sense says that

Some individuals who currently argue that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God may eventually undergo a conversion. If the argument from non-belief holds any weight, such conversions would strongly suggest that God indeed exists. In such cases, the non-believer may need to employ the “No True Scotsman” argument or other tactics to sidestep the logic of their own stance.

Both scripture and simple observation demonstrate that the two main premises of the argument from disbelief are flawed. People are not naturally inclined towards objective rationality, and the concept of God is far from trivial. The issue of God’s existence carries significant personal implications, making it unlikely for anyone to approach it from a purely objective standpoint. It is unreasonable to suggest that the sole reason an individual remains unconvinced of God’s existence is due to a lack of personal evidence provided by God. This reasoning is akin to that of flat-earthers who make similar claims.