# Generic failures in arguments for the nonexistence God **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Religion\ **Tags:** god\ **Created:** [August 25, 2026, 12:31am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715 "2026-08-25T00:31:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 4:31pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/225 "2026-09-14T16:31:38Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. **If God didn’t exist then** the applicability of math to nature would be a coincidence. This _non sequitur_ premise invalidates the conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 5:05pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/226 "2026-09-14T17:05:25Z")
We have to take into consideration Eugene Wigner’s, Mario Livio’s, Galileo Galilei’s quotes. Wigner was genuinely surprised by how math worked, still works, with the sciences. This was simply a continuation of Galileo’s discovery about the quantitative laws of nature. Mario Livio echoes the same sentiment. These are scientists and mathematicians who are more than adequately informed about both science and mathematics. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 7:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/227 "2026-09-14T19:04:01Z")
So, in other words, God-of-the-_unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics_-gap. 😶 ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 7:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/228 "2026-09-14T19:20:31Z")
It’s not a god-of-the-gaps type of argument. Clarifying the matter: 1. There is a mind behind mathematics 2. The universe is mathematical 3. There is a mind behind the universe ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 9:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/229 "2026-09-14T21:13:00Z")
I guess these are tongue in cheek, right? I’m going to respond as if they are real as an exercise. > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. If God didn’t exist then the applicability of math to nature would be a coincidence. Disagree. Firstly it’s a non sequitur. Secondly, the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” is a big topic in itself but suffice it to say not everyone agrees that it is such a surprise. IMO all you need is for the universe to be self-consistent and mathematics will be extremely useful. > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. The applicability of math to nature is not a coincidence It isn’t? How do we know this? > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. There is a mind behind mathematics How do we know this? > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. The universe is mathematical How do we know this? ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 9:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/230 "2026-09-14T21:20:20Z")
[Answers to your questions](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/489) ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 9:27pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/231 "2026-09-14T21:27:55Z")
That post in no way answers my questions. If you’re just going to use premises that other people don’t agree with, then save some time and go with: **P1:** God exists ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 9:30pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/232 "2026-09-14T21:30:44Z")
The linked post answers all your perceptive questions. If it’s unsatisfactory, I’ll answer them here. Do you agree that mathematics is abstraction? Do you agree that abstraction is mind-apt? ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 9:55pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/233 "2026-09-14T21:55:22Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. The universe is **mathematical** Yes, but the universe is not _mathematics_ itself, so your conclusion does not follow. > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. There is a **mind** behind mathematics This suggests that a “mind” is also “mathematical”; yet if nothing is “behind” a _mathematical mind_, then likewise nothing is behind a “mathematical universe”. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 10:33pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/234 "2026-09-14T22:33:10Z")
I guess I’m saying a mind had to, well, put the math in our universe. Since math is abstraction and abstractions are mind-apt, we are led to inevitably conclude a mind behind our universe, no? I don’t agree with nothing being behind our mathematical mind. God is (re multiple issues with physicalism). I mean how can nothing make a mind? ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 2:57am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/235 "2026-09-15T02:57:22Z")
Why can’t mathematics (i.e. all mathematical structures) be an eternal manifold within which “universes” and “minds” are embedded? Consider Max Tegmark’s (Spinoza-like) MUH: > **[Mathematical universe hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis)** > > In physics, cosmology, and metaphysics, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark. According to the hypothesis, the universe is a mathematical object in and of itself. Tegmark extends this idea to hypothesize that all mathematical objects exist, which he describes as a form of Platonism or modal realism. The hypothesis has proven controversial. Jürgen Schmidhuber argues ... ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 4:29am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/236 "2026-09-15T04:29:28Z")
Some kind of mathematical object, like a manifold from which our universe arises further strengthens the theistic position as it shows how great of an intellect designed the universe. You’re countering my argument from design by showing me an even more well-designed object than the one I presented as proof. Suffice it to say that you can’t use anything that’s mathematical to disprove the argument from math. After all, (mind, math) is a highly consonant dyad. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 5:26am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/237 "2026-09-15T05:26:35Z")
Ok, if you say so. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 5:54am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/238 "2026-09-15T05:54:52Z")
Not me, reason. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 10:13am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/239 "2026-09-15T10:13:33Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > The linked post answers all your perceptive questions. If it’s unsatisfactory, I’ll answer them here. Yes they are unsatisfactory; premises that are not universally agreed need arguments of their own. > [@Scorpion](#): > > Do you agree that mathematics is abstraction? Yes > [@Scorpion](#): > > Do you agree that abstraction is mind-apt? What is “mind-apt”? ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 11:26am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/240 "2026-09-15T11:26:54Z")
These are silly questions. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 11:41am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/241 "2026-09-15T11:41:00Z")
They were genuine questions asked in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 5:36am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/242 "2026-09-16T05:36:26Z")
Argument from objective morality 1. If God doesn’t exist then there is no objective morality 2. There is objective morality 3. God exists ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 5:41am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/243 "2026-09-16T05:41:31Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. **If** God doesn’t exist **then** there is no objective morality Non sequitur. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 10:48am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/244 "2026-09-16T10:48:48Z")
What then of so many religions that base their morality on an omnibenevolent being? [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=11) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=13)