Divine love and nonbelief › What perfect love is supposed to require

Schellenberg's account of love goes beyond benevolence at a distance. He argues that perfect love values conscious relationship for its own sake. It would therefore keep relationship possible for those loved, rather than merely confer benefits while making mutual recognition unavailable. His analogies include admirable parents, siblings, and friends. These examples support a proposed understanding of love; they are not empirical measurements of God's behavior. “The Sounds of Silence Stilled,” section 1.

The distinction between an open relationship and an established one does much of the work. A person might know that God exists and decline to trust or worship. Schellenberg does not infer that God would compel every creature to enter a relationship. His claim is that capable, nonresistant creatures would be able to do so. The person retains a choice about the relationship even when the other's existence is beyond doubt.

As a simple illustration, knowing that a friend is reachable does not compel me to call. It makes calling an available action. If I cannot establish that the friend exists, the obstacle is different from reluctance to pick up the phone. The analogy isolates availability. It does not imply that human friends owe one another constant access, or that a relationship with God would resemble a telephone conversation.

The capacities qualification also matters. The argument does not demand identical beliefs from every human being at every developmental stage. It concerns persons capable of the conscious relationship at issue. Excluding those who lack the capacities does not say that God could not love them in other ways. It limits the inference about which form of relationship divine love would make available.