Machellenberg's Sacrifice Argument

This essay will outline Cullison’s sacrifice argument against the problems of divine hiddenness. It will then show that this argument does not work, as a world in which true human sacrifice is possible is not a better world than one where God is not hidden. I will refer to the former as a ‘Godless World’ and the latter as a ‘Godly World’. There are three themes which this essay will address: true human sacrifice, two potential worlds and human freedom. I will conclude that a ‘Godly World’ – even if true human sacrifice is not possible within that world – is better than a ‘Godless World’ where true human sacrifice is possible.
Schellenberg’s Argument from Divine Hiddenness
Schellenberg argues that there is no omnibenevolent God. His “main argument” (Cullison, 2010, p. 119) is as follows:
“(1) If God exists, then …show more content…
(2) Some people are epistemically rational for not believing in God.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.” (Cullison, 2010, p. 119).
Schellenberg supports premise one through “the personal relationship argument” (Cullison, 2010, p. 119). It states that: If God exists, then the “the greatest good … is a personal relationship with God” (Cullison, 2010, p. 119).
Cullison’s Sacrifice Argument
Cullison argues against “the Problem of Divine Hiddenness” (Cullison, 2010, p. 131) by showing “that certain kinds of valuable actions are only possible when it is far from certain that God exists – namely, real genuine sacrifice.” (Cullison, 2010, p. 131) and these actions collectively outweigh individuals having “a personal relationship with God” (Cullison, 2010, p. 128). For Wielenberg and Cullison, “some of the greatest possible goods are only attainable in a naturalistic universe” (Cullison, 2010, p. 126). If God is hidden