They sought God for years and heard silence

Contested

Serious philosophers argue this both ways. Say so before your friend does.

The argument, stated fairly

J. L.

Schellenberg argues like this. A loving God would make himself available to anyone open to knowing him.

But there are people who do not believe and are not resisting. They sought God in earnest, some through years of anguished prayer.

They found silence.

The first Christian response is to believe them

Many who have left the faith are exhibit A here. Their seeking was real.

"You secretly resisted" is unkind and unfounded. Never say it.

The substantive answers

Paul Moser argues that God's aim is filial knowledge, meaning love that changes you, not spectator certainty. Evidence strong enough to force agreement without surrender might produce exactly the wrong relationship.

Pascal saw the same asymmetry: "enough light for those who desire to see, enough obscurity for those of a contrary disposition." Scripture says the experience is real. "Truly, you are a God who hides himself" (Isaiah 45:15).

A third of the Psalms lament the silence. The claim was never that God is obvious.

It is that he is findable (Jeremiah 29:13).

Their answer, at full strength

Schellenberg's replies are strong. A relationship needs you to believe the other party is there.

A loving parent does not hide so well the child doubts she has one. Whatever obscurity buys, an all-powerful God could buy it and still let you know he exists.

The wrong-kind-of-belief worry confuses knowing God is real with surrendering to him. The demons of James 2:19 manage the first without the second, so clarity coerces nobody.

And Stephen Maitzen's point bites. Unbelief clusters by geography and upbringing.

Thailand against Texas is what cultural handing-on predicts, not what a divine plan for relationship predicts. The lament Psalms record the silence.

They do not explain it.

How strong is this argument?

Contested. After the problem of evil, this is the strongest atheist argument going.

It aims straight at the experience of someone who really tried. Pretending it has a tidy answer will land as gaslighting to anyone who lived it.

So validate the seeking first. Then offer Moser and Pascal as a coherent account, not a proof.

What to say

"I believe you looked. I'm not going to tell you that you didn't."

Honthorst's Agony in the Garden; the Gospels themselves record prayer that met no answer

Pascal's autograph Pensées manuscript, where he wrote of enough light and enough obscurity

El Greco's Agony in the Garden, a painting of the prayer 'let this cup pass'

How they answer this — at its strongest

A loving parent does not hide so well that the child doubts she exists.

Schellenberg's replies are strong. A relationship needs you to believe the other party is there. A loving parent does not hide so well that the child doubts she has a parent. Whatever good comes of God staying hidden, an all-powerful God could give us that good and still let us know he is there.

The 'wrong kind of belief' worry mixes up knowing that God exists with giving yourself to him. The demons of James 2:19 do the first without the second. So the two come apart, and being clear forces nobody.

Stephen Maitzen's point about numbers bites too. Non-belief clusters by place and upbringing, Thailand against Texas. That is what culture predicts. It is not what a God seeking a relationship predicts. The lament Psalms attest the experience of hiddenness. They do not explain why a loving God would let honest seekers die in the silence.

The verdict

Contested, and it aims straight at people who really looked and heard nothing.

Contested. After the problem of evil this is the strongest argument against God there is, and it aims straight at what the deconvert actually lived through. Pretending it has a tidy answer will read as gaslighting to anyone who has been there.

Start by saying the seeking was real. The Bible says so too, at Isaiah 45:15 and Psalm 13. Then offer Moser and Pascal as one coherent account of why a God who wants love might not make himself obvious. Coherent, not conclusive. Never say 'they secretly resisted'.

Open this case in the full study tool →