On non-belief and the existence of God

[FallentoReason]

Hey Michael, thanks for the thoughtful response. Let's have a look at it.

Hi F2R

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that people could essentially be damned out of ignorance. I'd like to challenge that view a little. If we look at how John the Evangelist describes Jesus's response to the Jews who were rejecting them he says (John 5:22), "If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.". So ignorance, it appears, would have been an excuse.

Hmm.. would this be equivalent to, say, telling your kid about cleaning his room? So e.g. 'If I had not spoken to my kid, he would not have a messy room; but now he has no excuse for the mess in his room'.
If that's accurate, then I'd have to disagree about ignorance being an excuse. How was your kid supposed to know the very first time you had an expectation of him if you had never spoken to him about it? Ergo the non-belief problem.

If we look at the context of Jesus's teachings about people not believing in him, we find that we're not talking about abstract people in any place and time, but people who had heard him speak, seen him heal, and still reject him. The context, which is a growing tension between Jesus and the leading Jews, is Jesus showing them what the Kingdom of heaven is like, and them saying 'no, we don't want that'.

I'm not so sure that there is a problem here? This is an example where God somewhat "indirectly" shows himself and people have then exercised their free will and unfortunately chosen against him.
This is precisely the sort of opportunity *everyone* deserves, in all places and time throughout the ages, but perhaps without the ambiguity.

Likewise in the parable of the sheep and goats the people who inherit the Kingdom did not recognise the King, but had embraced the values of the King (feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc), so accepting the King (Jesus) could mean accepting his values, even when they did not recognise the King. The people who were destined to be excluded were those who had rejected the values of the King.

Paul echoes these thoughts in his letter to the Romans, when he essentially says that the conscience judges those who have not had the revelation of any particular law: "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all."

Hang on, so are you essentially saying that knowledge of Jesus/God isn't required to gain access to heaven?

If you have three minutes to spare, I find this a thoughtful short video from Tom Wright.

Interesting video, and I can see how the choices we make would have a big influence on where we end up eventually. But this doesn't detract from the point I'm making, which is that God revealing himself wouldn't negate our ability to then choose for ourselves if we wish to worship him or not.

---

Within the Christian framework, it is believed that God exists, and that there are propositions p,q,r...z that are *necessary* for us to believe in order to be saved…

Only among certain mainline Protestants (like Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists) that preach “faith alone” hold this position.

Then I think this argument poses a great challenge to them

The Roman Catholics allow those outside the Church to be saved if they have “perfect contrition.” It is also not a problem for New Church, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers and other heterodox groups. I don’t think Methodists have a very clear teaching on this, and I grew-up in a half-Methodist church community. These same Christological and sorietological debates have gone on since the first century.

Any other theory for the methodology to being saved will always suffer from the same problem. It is that the incentive to take on such action will usually come about from a justification as to why such action is even necessary/useful/important in the first place. Long story short, the appearance of God to all is just as critical as ever, no matter how you believe salvation will come about.
You can in fact plug in other necessary conditions (not just faith-based conditions) into the argument, and still come out with the same result, with a minor adjustment so as to accomodate for practical conditions such as acting a certain way.

...this is something that can very easily be avoided by God himself if only he would undeniably reveal himself as the God of Christianity. He has the power to do so, and the will to act by.

I don’t think so. Even if YHVH was printed on the blood cells of every human being, it still would not be undeniable enough for a staunch naturalist. That stamp could be the maker’s mark of ancient aliens, right?

If we remember that God is omniscient, then he would know precisely how to reveal himself such that we wouldn't be mistaken about his existence.

… we actually have very clear examples of people who directly witnessed God in His almighty presence and yet, freely chose to rebel…Adam & Eve… Lucifer and the fallen angels…

Very true. Anyone can see that simply knowing the truth is not sufficient without the will to act on it. Most people know that a high fat simple sugar diet is bad for you, yet many still continue to eat unhealthily.
Those who know the truth but lack the will to act on it, no matter how well informed, cannot even follow the dictates of their own convictions. Those who truly desire to do the right thing will do so when they know the truth. These people can be instructed by the Lord. Your examples (the original parents and the devil) also make good proof-texts for why the ‘faith alone’ doctrine is not the best one. Orthopraxy trumps orthodoxy every time.

[/quote]

Well, again, I think whether orthopraxy or orthodoxy is the way, it would still make a world of difference (quite literally) if God undeniably showed himself. That way, those who lack the will to act on this knowledge are *absolutely* responsible for the life they've lead. But until then, it's unjust to punish the unbeliever to an eternity of damnation just because God didn't make it clear the life He created them into.