# 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:** 13
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 10:58am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/245 "2026-09-16T10:58:19Z")
**Scorpion:** if dogs don’t exist then nobody has a pet **180 Proof:** _Non sequitur_ **Scorpion:** What then of everyone with a pet dog? Pet cats exist too, Scorpion. _Edit: “pet scorpion” was right there and I missed it_ ---
**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, 11:04am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/246 "2026-09-16T11:04:54Z")
Nice try but your analogy fails. ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 11:09am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/247 "2026-09-16T11:09:45Z")
It does not. It adequately shows that your response to 180 Proof’s “non sequitur” was yet another non sequitur. That “many religions … base their morality on an omnibenevolent being” does not entail that if God does not exist then there is no objective morality. Kant, for example, puts forth a strong case for the categorical imperative being an objective morality. This does not require God. ---
**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, 11:21am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/248 "2026-09-16T11:21:41Z")
> The starry heavens above and the moral law within ~ Kant Kant was the originator of the argument from objective morality. Kant’s CI is interesting. Thank you for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 2:42pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/249 "2026-09-16T14:42:08Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Kant was the originator of the argument from objective morality. Perhaps in his pre-critical phase, but in _Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals_ where he develops the Categorical Imperative he says this: > But don’t think that with God the father we have at last found the example or model from which we can derive our concept of morality. Where do we get the concept of _God as the highest good_ from? Solely from the idea of moral perfection that reason lays out for us _a_ _priori_ and which it ties, unbreakably, to the concept of a free will. > > … > > Objective laws of the good would _apply to_ a perfectly good will just as much to as to any other; but we shouldn’t think of them as _constraining_ such a will, because it is so constituted that it can’t be determined to act by anything except the thought of the good. Thus no imperatives hold for God’s will or for any holy will. The ‘ought’ is out of place here, for the volition is of itself _necessarily_ at one with the law. So Kant’s answer to the Euthyphro dilemma “is this good because God commands it or does God command this because it is good?” is that God commands this because it is good. As such it’s possible that there is an objective morality even if there is no God or even if there is a malicious, omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent designer. ---
**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, 2:51pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/250 "2026-09-16T14:51:57Z")
Yes, that’s a well-known answer to the question that you pose. I was referring to somewhat the same thing. No objective morality sans God. ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 2:52pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/251 "2026-09-16T14:52:49Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Yes, that’s a well-known answer to the question that you pose. I was referring to somewhat the same thing. No objective morality sans God. This is literally the opposite of what I and Kant said. There can be an objective morality without God. ---
**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, 2:59pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/252 "2026-09-16T14:59:12Z")
Well, you didn’t explain it well. Please kindly do so. How does it go again? ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 3:01pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/253 "2026-09-16T15:01:21Z")
The good just is the good, even if there is no God. But if there is a God then it is its nature to only do good things. ---
**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, 3:03pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/254 "2026-09-16T15:03:15Z")
Even if you were right, that still doesn’t prove God is not the source of goodness in the world, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 3:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/255 "2026-09-16T15:06:33Z")
What do you mean by “source of goodness”? If Kant is correct then there are objective rights and wrongs even if God doesn’t exist. ---
**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, 3:07pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/256 "2026-09-16T15:07:47Z")
Aah, it’s becoming clearer now, but you do realize you’re condensing what is an entire moral theory into 1 sentence. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![bucket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bucket](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/bucket)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 3:31pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/257 "2026-09-16T15:31:57Z")
I apologize I am not certain, but I was under the impression that it was perfectly reasonable to assume based on available evidence and then be later disproven? if I have no knowledge of the existence of for example a bird having nested in some arbitrary mildly atypical place say a bush instead of a tree when it typically does otherwise is it not reasonable to assume the bird is not present in the bush? finding that it has in fact done so does not mean my prior process was illogical though it was disproven given it was in the bush not the tree. or at least that was my assumption. if I were to when told all birds fly and the penguin is a bird, given that data it would be reasonable to assume correct or not that penguins fly right? ---
**Author:** ![Thrifclyfe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/thrifclyfe/32/1132_2.png) [@Thrifclyfe](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Thrifclyfe)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 3:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/258 "2026-09-16T15:41:35Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural science [demonstrates a deity]. I hate this one. Bad argument. Many caveats. > [@180Proof](#): > > This _non sequitur_ premise invalidates the conclusion. You are basically saying “fallacy”. I made a topic cautioning against this. > [@180Proof](#): > > Non sequitur. Fallacy fallacy. Every fallacy is a non sequitur. > [@Michael](#): > > There can be an objective morality without God. Strong. Evolutionary? If not, I don’t care to know. ---
**Author:** ![bucket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bucket](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/bucket)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 4:00pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/259 "2026-09-16T16:00:07Z")
math was created as a description of physical phenomena by humans no? it isn’t a real thing. things may be described by mathematics but they are not necessarily governed by it. a ball may fall regardless of the presence of the description of 9.8m/s^2. God is not necessarily necessary to induce phenomena into existence, nor is it necessarily unnecessary. there is no real point to arguing for or against at this point. and as far as we know yes patterned chaos could create a mind but to our understanding it didn’t. it created a tiny machine that was capable of flawed self replication, which in turn via continuously incorrectly duplicating and until one of the duplicates failed to immediately perish over and over again eventually created a photoreceptive mechanism which was not any use to anything until by happenstance the photoreceptor triggered it to flee thus escaping ultraviolet destruction. this is evolution. meaningless mutation that continues until the mutant dies and whatever fails to die continues no real plan just failing to go extinct, a race to the finish line with the line being set by the furthest runner. a mind didn’t kill its owner that one time way back and thus continued to exist. what made a mind in this argument is chance. chaos. so if to you there must be a god it could be the subatomic chaos that is used as an argument against determinism? this depends on your definition. is God a consciousness to you? if God were prove-ably a random inert stone would that qualify? please explain. ---
**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 16, 2026, 4:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/260 "2026-09-16T16:20:47Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. If God doesn’t exist then there is no objective morality Doesn’t follow at all. No reason has been given for why an objective morality could not exist absent a god. > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. There is objective morality Is there? Where’s the proof of this? How do humans come to know this objective morality, given that societies change and religious scripture is far from self-consistent, let alone still followed. > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. God exists On top of everything else, this is the affirming the consequent fallacy. You can’t flip the sign of both of the elements in p1. ETA: my mistake this is indeed modus tollens ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 4:25pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/261 "2026-09-16T16:25:27Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > On top of everything else, this is the affirming the consequent fallacy. You can’t flip the sign of both of the elements in p1. It’s _modus tollens_. ¬P → ¬Q, Q ∴ P ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/262 "2026-09-16T16:26:59Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > What then of so many religions that base their morality on **an omnibenevolent being?** So what of them? Certainly moralities **based on “faith”** are not objective. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/263 "2026-09-16T18:20:06Z")
@bucket It isn’t wrong to say that all birds fly or that birds aren’t in the bush. Likewise, it isn’t wrong to say that without God there can be no objective morality. 👍 Yes, exactly, God is necessary for objective morality. 👍 * * * @Thrifclyfe Why, don’t you agree that we have a consonant dyad (mind, math)? Mathematics is abstraction. * * * @Mijin1 God is the reason (for objective morality). 🤔 There is objective morality. Clearly some things are wrong and some things are right. * * * @180Proof Perhaps you underestimate faith. > Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed * * * To all the above contributors (thanks) God is the ground of morality. Without God nothing is good or bad. Consider a dispute in a village somewhere in the world. People involved would go to the village headman to sort things out. Each wouldn’t impose their own beliefs on the other. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/264 "2026-09-16T18:37:48Z")
Another God argument for God 1. There is order in the universe 2. If there is order in the universe then God exists 3. God exists [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=12) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=14)