# 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:** 24
**Author:** ![LordKing777](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/lordking777/32/1368_2.png) [@LordKing777](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/LordKing777)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2026, 8:40am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/465 "2026-09-27T08:40:18Z")
Skeptical theism ---
**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 27, 2026, 11:43am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/466 "2026-09-27T11:43:52Z")
Argument from fine-tuning. 1. The universe is fine-tuned for life 2. If the universe is fine-tuned for life then God’s working under constraints 3. God is working under constraints 4. If God is working under constraints then God isn’t omnipotent 5. God isn’t omnipotent First God is omnipotent and hence can be omnipotent and not omnipotent. Second we have no issue with a God that’s not omnipotent, just as we accepted the bimoral/malevolent nature 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 27, 2026, 1:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/467 "2026-09-27T13:32:48Z")
The mother of all refutations of arguments for the nonexistence of God God is beyond logic > God moves in a mysterious way ~ William Cowper > God’s ways are not our ways. God’s ways are higher ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2026, 2:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/468 "2026-09-27T14:21:38Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > God is beyond logic So by definition illogical. QED. ---
**Author:** ![LordKing777](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/lordking777/32/1368_2.png) [@LordKing777](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/LordKing777)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2026, 2:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/469 "2026-09-27T14:32:07Z")
> [@Michael](#): > > So by definition illogical. God is above Logos ---
**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 27, 2026, 2:48pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/470 "2026-09-27T14:48:19Z")
> [@Michael](#): > > So by definition illogical. > > QED. 👍 Paraconsistent logic & Dialetheism? ---
**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 27, 2026, 11:55pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/471 "2026-09-27T23:55:18Z")
It’s quite clear that the biggest gun in the theist’s arsenal is God is beyond logic i.e. he’s omnipotent. Being so he can be good and bad at the same time, create a rock he can’t lift and lift it, can see his own future and still be free. 🦖 ---
**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 28, 2026, 12:42am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/472 "2026-09-28T00:42:38Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > the biggest gun in the theist’s arsenal is God is **beyond logic** Yeah, it’s a pop gun. 🙉 > [@](#): > > i.e. omnipotence By “omnipotence” I understand _the power to create or destroy every possible world as well as to instantly cause changes to or within any (or every) possible world._ ---
**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 28, 2026, 1:42am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/473 "2026-09-28T01:42:14Z")
A pop gun for pop things, yeah. 😸 Your understanding of omnipotence is important but omnipotence conventionally means the ability to do anything, no constraints. ---
**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 28, 2026, 1:43am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/474 "2026-09-28T01:43:07Z")
“Conventionally” =/= philosophically. ---
**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 28, 2026, 1:44am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/475 "2026-09-28T01:44:33Z")
In this case conventionally = philosophically. ---
**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 28, 2026, 9:07am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/476 "2026-09-28T09:07:24Z")
> [@Michael](#): > > > [@Scorpion](#): > > > > God is beyond logic > > So by definition illogical. > > QED. > [@On generic failures found in arguments for the existence of god](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/784): > > I’m trying to locate the source of the problem. 😃 > > If we change the logic to paraconsistent logic the problem is solved. Paraconsistent logic tolerates contradictions. So God exists even if the probability of God existing is almost surely 0 0. Furthermore everything has a cause but God doesn’t, and so on. > > > [@Scorpion](#): > > > > The mother of all refutations of arguments for the nonexistence of God > > > > God is beyond logic > > > > > God moves in a mysterious way ~ William Cowper > > > > > God’s ways are not our ways. God’s ways are higher Good day sir. For your consideration. ---
**Author:** ![Michael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2026, 9:42am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/477 "2026-09-28T09:42:07Z")
Having to abandon classical logic and appeal to paraconsistent logic is an admission of failure. It’s a _post hoc_ rationalisation of a belief that you accept is otherwise unjustified. So why believe in God in the first place? It’s almost like you don’t care about the reasons; you just _really really_ want to believe in God, and so then make up reasons for it after the fact — hence your shotgun argumentation. ---
**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 28, 2026, 10:19am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/478 "2026-09-28T10:19:51Z")
First, paraconsistent logic has been widely applied in many fields. One that I’m aware of is in computer databases. Second, life is full of inconsistencies. I’m an agnostic. ---
**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 29, 2026, 9:40pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/479 "2026-09-29T21:40:42Z")
One retort to the Kalam cosmological argument is that the universe need not have a cause. However, this is inconsistent with the mathematics of Laplace’s rule. n = Number of observations m = Number of times X was observed Pr(X will be observed again) = \frac{m + 1}{n + 2} We’ve observed so many things in our lives. A conservative estimate would be at least a million events and all these events surely had causes. So for m = n, the probability that the next thing we observe doesn’t have a cause = \frac{1}{n + 2}. Pr(the universe - the next thing we observe - doesn’t have a cause) = \frac{1}{10^6 + 2} Pr(the universe has a cause) = 1 - \frac{1}{10^6 + 2} = 99.9999 \% ---
**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 29, 2026, 10:05pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/480 "2026-09-29T22:05:28Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > I’m an agnostic. You’re agnostic about the truth-value of the claim “God exists”? Or are you agnostic about the truth-value of the claims of “theism”? ---
**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 29, 2026, 10:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/481 "2026-09-29T22:28:58Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > You’re agnostic about the truth-value of the claim “God exists”? > > Or are you agnostic about the truth-value of the claims of “theism”? I’m agnostic about whether God exists or not. I don’t know if God exists or doesn’t exist. Theism is a more complex entity. I’m also open to the possibility that God is malevolent or bimoral. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2026, 2:05am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/482 "2026-10-01T02:05:25Z")
Something I believe is important 1. The OOO-God can’t be disproven or proven 2. A Deus Malus is better than a Deus Bonum ---
**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:** [October 1, 2026, 4:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/483 "2026-10-01T16:44:10Z")
Argument from chaos theory 1. The mathematics of celestial mechanics so far tells us that the solar system should be unstable (re n-body problem) 2. The solar system is surprisingly stable 3. 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:** [October 1, 2026, 9:37pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/484 "2026-10-01T21:37:34Z")
> The son of God died. Just because it is absurd, it is to be believed. And he was buried and rose again. It is certain because it is impossible ~ Tertullian Credo quia absurdum Certum est quia impossibile est 😃 [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=23) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=25)