# 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:** 15
**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, 5:05am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/285 "2026-09-17T05:05:22Z")
Which “God”? And why not disbelief in less than all gods? Or belief in (a) nontheistic god(s)? ---
**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, 5:06am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/286 "2026-09-17T05:06:54Z")
You’ve made an error ---
**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, 5:10am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/287 "2026-09-17T05:10:31Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Your flat-earth strawman is sad. Misattribution. I did not accuse you of arguing about ‘the flat Earth’. ---
**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, 7:48am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/288 "2026-09-17T07:48:39Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > Misattribution. I did not accuse you of arguing about ‘the flat Earth’. I know. It is a strawman nevertheless - you’re comparing a genuine issue with a not-so-obviously poor one. It’s ok. I make mistakes. Heck even ChatGPT does. As I was saying, if you’re interested, Godless moral theories like utilitarianism and deontological ethics have unresolved issues. They are presumably trying to say something ethical but failing to do so. Given so, what can be said about an objective human morality. We should’ve landed the plane by now, no? ---
**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 17, 2026, 8:27am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/289 "2026-09-17T08:27:57Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Yes, we’ll need to consult a biblical scholar for that. OK. So how do we know what is wrong or right? You said there is objective morality and “clearly some things are wrong and some things are right”. How do we know? ---
**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, 11:20am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/290 "2026-09-17T11:20:39Z")
I must profess my ignorance on that one. ---
**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 17, 2026, 11:50am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/291 "2026-09-17T11:50:19Z")
That’s commendable, but it is key to your premise. Shall we just agree that that particular proof of God didn’t work? ---
**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, 12:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/292 "2026-09-17T12:12:36Z")
There is no objective human morality. Hence an ethics based on God. ---
**Author:** ![wonderer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wonderer/32/106_2.png) [@wonderer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/wonderer)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 12:55pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/293 "2026-09-17T12:55:08Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > > [@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. Tastes like P2 is an unsupported assertion. Why think P2 is true? ---
**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, 12:59pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/294 "2026-09-17T12:59:27Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Well, I have to admit, copy-pasted it from somewhere else 🤭 Thanks for your honesty. ---
**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 17, 2026, 1:33pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/295 "2026-09-17T13:33:21Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > There is no objective human morality. Hence an ethics based on God. 1. Once again: No reason has been given for why an objective morality could not exist absent a god. So this remains a non sequitur. 2. A morality based on God would be _subjective_, by definition. Subjective means the determination of a mind. You’re beginning with the conclusion of “therefore, God” and scrambling just to put whatever in front of it. And then, when it gets refuted, just ploughing on with another try. What’s the point? Who is this even for? ---
**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, 2:25pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/296 "2026-09-17T14:25:06Z")
> [@wonderer](#): > > Tastes like P2 is an unsupported assertion. Why think P2 is true? These are classic arguments. Anyway, (order, intelligence) are consonant dyads. ---
**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, 2:27pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/297 "2026-09-17T14:27:42Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > 1. Once again: No reason has been given for why an objective morality could not exist absent a god. So this remains a non sequitur. > 2. A morality based on God would be _subjective_, by definition. Subjective means the determination of a mind. > > You’re beginning with the conclusion of “therefore, God” and scrambling just to put whatever in front of it. And then, when it gets refuted, just ploughing on with another try. > What’s the point? Who is this even for? Well I asked you for objective human morality. Not all minds are the same. God’s mind is objective, unlike our minds. We try, but we fail most of the time. Who is this for? I haven’t decided whom to dedicate this thread to. Any thoughts? ---
**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 17, 2026, 2:57pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/298 "2026-09-17T14:57:43Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Well I asked you for objective human morality. You did? When? I’ll give you the answer right now though: I don’t believe in objective morality. There’s no evidence for it, and it’s unclear how we would “detect” objective morality in any case. > [@Scorpion](#): > > Not all minds are the same. God’s mind is objective, unlike our minds. No, you don’t get to do that. If morality is determined by a mind, even an omnimax one, it’s subjective. It’s _subject to the mind of 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 17, 2026, 3:33pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/299 "2026-09-17T15:33:41Z")
@Mijin1 There is no human objective morality, agreed. God’s mind and human minds are totally different. I’m not doing anything. I’m just working from what is common knowledge. ---
**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, 4:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/300 "2026-09-17T16:13:44Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > … what can be said about an **objective** human morality. > [@180Proof](#): > > > [@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 Consider: > **[Suffering-focused ethics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering-focused_ethics)** > > Suffering-focused ethics are views in ethics that give special priority to the reduction of suffering. Some suffering-focused views hold that reducing suffering is the only moral aim, while others treat it as one aim among others, such as reducing inequality or promoting pleasure, but give it greater weight than those other aims. The term "suffering-focused ethics" covers several normative positions that give priority to reducing suffering. One example is negative consequentialism. On this view, ... ---
**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 17, 2026, 5:14pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/301 "2026-09-17T17:14:56Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > There is no human objective morality, agreed. God’s mind and human minds are totally different. I’m not doing anything. I’m just working from what is common knowledge. Cite for your “common knowledge”. Because right now it looks like this particular proof of God needs me to 1) Accept a completely idiosyncratic definition of objective morality, in order to 2) Jump to the conclusion that if God can give objective morality that this is the _only way_ objective morality can exist. Oh and then I also need to 3) Accept the premise that objective morality exists…a massive philosophical debate in itself. What are we doing here? I honestly thought your first “proof” was meant as a joke. Do you care whether any of these proofs work on any level? ---
**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 17, 2026, 5:42pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/302 "2026-09-17T17:42:21Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > Subjective means the determination of a mind. I think our understanding of “objective” and “subjective” is preventing progress, here. After working out what each means we may be able to work out what Scorpion’s “God” means, also. Not to pry, but your timezone should situate you perfectly to understand that language comes first. ---
**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 17, 2026, 8:05pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/303 "2026-09-17T20:05:58Z")
Thanks for the condescension, but do you have a cite for a mind-derived morality being objective? ---
**Author:** ![Mskied](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mskied](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mskied)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 8:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/304 "2026-09-17T20:43:14Z")
God is Good, but humanity has Free Will. The cause of human beings performing Evil is not so black and white as to offer a quick punishment of the evildoer. It is probably not in Gods design that God should govern each act of evil, and to do so would certainly thwart the blessing of Free Will. Why do we have Free Will? Because God wants to see what we will do, and what we will invent. When it comes to God and the Universe, I give you three propositions. 1. God is Eternal, and created everything. This begs the questions of Free Will, and what God wants of us. It also runs into the problem of infinite regression, which is: who made God? Contemporary Religions run on this model, but none of them have an answer. God always was. 2. The Big Bang. There is no God, or we exist in a confined space that God can go in and out of. This would be difficult to control, but it is possible that God put the blueprints of life into the mass and ignited it, and it took billions of years to evolve into life and planets. The Universe is immense, and it’s structure is complex, as is life and nature, and given the time it would take, one has to wonder how God could exist so long, and how big God is. What kind of technology would this entail? When one looks at our technology, it is possible to conceive. 3. Matter always existed, as did the planets, and God simply came into being. With the theory of evolution, which so many adhere to, being so seemingly impossible- yet has gained much faith, why then couldn’t God have evolved as well? This would mean that God did not make the Universe, but still grant God the ability to interact with Universe. This would answer infinite regression while supporting the big bang, evolution, and religion. If proposition 1 is the truth, then perhaps the outcome of our lives is predetermined, with limited Free Will. If proposition 2 is the truth, then nothing is predetermined and we have Free Will. If proposition 3 is the truth, then Free Will decides our outcome. God can and does interact, but as I said; the origin of evil deeds is not black and white. See my post of A new Axiom for a new beginning to read about my definition of Good and Evil, and how we can apprehend it, redefine God, and understand our actions and control the outcome of them. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=14) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=16)