# 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:** 14
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/265 "2026-09-16T18:40:31Z")
I humbly conjecture that some of us simply lack the god sense and are atheists while others possess it and are theists. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/266 "2026-09-16T18:52:02Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > There is objective morality. Clearly some things are wrong and some things are right. Such as what? Killing innocents? Rape? The bible seems inconsistent on things like this. ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/267 "2026-09-16T20:34:40Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > God is the ground of morality. Without God nothing is good or bad. 🙄 Assertion without argument or evidence. _Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur._ edit: > [@](#): > > _“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.”_ > > Kǒngzǐ > > _“What you find [harm]ful do not do to anyone.”_ > > Hillel the Elder Re: Morality **grounded in _the human condition_ (i.e. nature)** rather than “faith” 
 or authority or tradition or custom or preference, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Jay](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/jay/32/206_2.png) [@Jay](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Jay)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 8:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/268 "2026-09-16T20:38:38Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > God is the ground of morality. Without God nothing is good or bad. But how do you answer the Euthyphro question? Is a certain behavior good because God says so, or does God say so because it is good? You appear to be choosing the first option; I’m sure you can see the difficulties in wait, or if not, Socrates did! ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/269 "2026-09-16T21:55:53Z")
@Mijin1 Yes, we’ll need to consult a biblical scholar for that. @180Proof Doesn’t that lead to a non-objective morality? Aren’t we notoriously unreliable? @Jay There are known solutions to Euthyphro. For example that God = Goodness. I’m however not satisfied with that. * * * * * * To all above: There are 2 popular moral theories - utilitarianism and deontological ethics - that are Godless but they’re dissonant with each other and make dubious recommendations. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/270 "2026-09-16T22:11:47Z")
Afaik, _the human condition_ (i.e. our nature 
 every hunan has the same species-defects which via abuse or neglect render degrees of dysfunction (harm)) is a subject-invariant fact (i.e. 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, 10:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/271 "2026-09-16T22:20:59Z")
That’s a fine point. Doesn’t it beg the question though? I suppose I should ask, what is the human objective morality? I gave an example of the problem in one of my preceding posts. An ethical dispute in a village - what is the proper course of action? The disputants obviously haven’t been able to tell the difference between right and wrong as normally each would claim to be right. They go to the village chief and ask him to be the arbiter. The village chief, if he’s in any way familiar with the way things are done in the modern world, would form a committee. It’s just kicking the can down the road to me. ---
**Author:** ![Jay](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/jay/32/206_2.png) [@Jay](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Jay)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 10:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/272 "2026-09-16T22:53:23Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > There are known solutions to Euthyphro. For example that God = Goodness. I’m however not satisfied with that. Good, I don’t think you should be. Is the equals sign meant to indicate substitutional equivalence? If not, then what? ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/273 "2026-09-16T23:11:50Z")
> [@Jay](#): > > Good, I don’t think you should be. Is the equals sign meant to indicate substitutional equivalence? If not, then what? The same question bothers me. Substitutional equivalence is one thing. Equality is another. Which do you suppose is apropos? The way I formulate the Euthyphro dilemma is God is either undesirable or unnecessary. ---
**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, 11:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/274 "2026-09-16T23:29:26Z")
Godless morality also exists in the form of Buddhism and Jainism. However, each has its own problems, one of which is lack of clarity. ---
**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, 11:47pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/275 "2026-09-16T23:47:38Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > what is the proper course of action? The disputants obviously haven’t been able to tell the difference between right and wrong as normally each would claim to be right. They go to the village chief and ask him to be **the arbiter.** This is a juridical or political dispute, imo, not itself “ethical”; the third-party (“village chief’s”) arbitration may be _informed_ by (his) moral judgment and this might or might not be _objective_ (i.e. decrease (“right”) or increases (“wrong”) foreseeable / avoidable harm/s). > [@Scorpion](#): > > Godless morality also exists in the form of Buddhism and Jainism. However, each has its own problems, one of which is **lack of clarity** Buddhists and Jains don’t seem to find that their god-free moralities “lack clarity” 
 đŸ€” ---
**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, 11:47pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/276 "2026-09-16T23:47:56Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > 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 Another munchable morsel. ---
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/277 "2026-09-16T23:50:18Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > This is a juridical or political dispute, imo, not itself “ethical”; the third-party (“village chief’s”) arbitration may be _informed_ by (his) moral judgment and this might or might not be _objective_ (i.e. decrease (“right”) or increases (“wrong”) foreseeable harm/s). Yes, moral judgment and for the village chief this might not be objective. I don’t know what human moral objectivity is. 😕 Buddhism and Jainism, if they did provide a sound moral theory, would’ve been picked up by a moral philosopher’s radar. ---
**Author:** ![Jay](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/jay/32/206_2.png) [@Jay](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Jay)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 12:49am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/278 "2026-09-17T00:49:22Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > The same question bothers me. Substitutional equivalence is one thing. Equality is another. Which do you suppose is apropos? Not sure what to say here. If “equality” is something different from substitutional equivalence, I think it’s on you to say what it is, or might be. Only then could either of us have an opinion as to which version is apropos to the Euthyphro problem. ---
**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 17, 2026, 2:33am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/279 "2026-09-17T02:33:53Z")
Well, I have to admit, copy-pasted it from somewhere else đŸ€­ You seem to have studied it in more detail. God = Goodness should’ve rung some bells. 🙂 ---
**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 17, 2026, 3:59am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/280 "2026-09-17T03:59:16Z")
I guess I need to sum up. Atheistic moral theories 1. Utilitarianism 2. Deontological ethics 3. Jainism 4. Buddhism None are popular globally or among serious moral philosophers. On the other hand Christianity is a world leader in religion. Christian ethics is grounded in God. The Euthyphro dilemma is a thorn in the side of God-based ethics. I don’t know how to solve the dilemma but God = Goodness seems to satisfy some. Personally, ethics can’t come from nature (re. G. E. Moore and Hume’s is-ought gap). By the way, objective morality means a rock-solid foundation, which is hard to describe. ---
**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 17, 2026, 4:41am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/281 "2026-09-17T04:41:21Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Atheistic moral theories 🙄 Oxymoronic strawman. Atheism does not entail any “moral theories”. > [@Scorpion](#): > > [E]thics can’t **come from** nature (re. G. E. Moore and Hume’s is-ought gap). E.g. Epicurus and Spinoza disagree. John Dewey and Philippa Foot also disagree. Et al. ---
**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 17, 2026, 4:48am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/282 "2026-09-17T04:48:09Z")
You mean to say atheists have no morality except for theistic ones? Plus, I don’t recall God being invoked in utilitarianism. Perhaps deontological ethics rests on God’s shoulders. None of them (Epicurus, Foote, Spinoza) have gained wide currency. They remain limited to small groups. ---
**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 17, 2026, 4:53am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/283 "2026-09-17T04:53:11Z")
I mean to say: atheism is compatible with _any_ “moral theory” (including a “god-based morality”). Also, your _appeal to popularity_, Scorpion, is as fallacious as it is irrelevant. Not so long ago ‘the flat Earth’ was very popular. đŸ€« ---
**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 17, 2026, 5:04am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/284 "2026-09-17T05:04:27Z")
To accept a God-based morality one has to believe in God. đŸ«  I’m not appealing to authority and it’s ok to do so if the appeal is made in good faith. Your flat-earth strawman is sad. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=13) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=15)