# 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:** 9
**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 5, 2026, 2:19am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/164 "2026-09-05T02:19:56Z")
The mistake, vis-à-vis the problem of evil, is to think God is good. ---
**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 5, 2026, 1:09pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/165 "2026-09-05T13:09:07Z")
> [@creative](#): > > It’s not that you’re saying that they deny the existence of evil. But rather, that they may claim that we’re somehow confused and/or mistake about what counts as evil, which in turn would be saying that we’re also confused and/or mistaken about what counts as good. Exactly. > [@creative](#): > > Yeah. I think that there are any number of people who hold that view, to some extent or another. What you often see, I believe, is people wanting to claim that we’re wrong about evil, without realizing that you also have to claim we’re wrong about good. More common still, perhaps, is the understandable desire to place human judgments in perspective, and argue that from God’s PoV, things may look very different indeed. But you have to remain consistent – if what we call evil isn’t what it appears to be, then neither is good. This may, of course, be true, but then a stoic silence on both subjects is required; we would literally not know what we were talking about. ---
**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 5, 2026, 3:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/166 "2026-09-05T15:11:37Z")
> [@Sam26](#): > > Christians often answer the problem of evil with the free will defense, but that’s never answered the problem. If God, as they believe is omniscient, then he would have known creating humans with free will would result in evil, or at the very least, would have suspected it would result in evil. Moreover, he would have know that a large portion of humans would end up in hell (based on what most Christians believe). This would make God responsible for evil. > > My metaphysics answers these questions. I don’t think it quite covers it. The free will argument, as advanced most prominently by Plantinga in recent years, basically postulates that this is the best possible world, even with this level of evil, as a world with free will is the greater good. Let me be clear that I think 1) free will is an incoherent concept, and that’s precisely why it is used for this apologetic, as well as myriad other problems like divine hiddeness, atrocities in the bible etc. 1. The idea of this being the best possible world is laughable on its face, given the great amount of suffering, much of it natural suffering, animal suffering etc. But I tend to concede the point, and say that, yes, the _logical_ problem of evil can be considered dubious. Because, while the free will defense is a mess, it does at least lead us to consider the possibility of this being the best possible universe _for reasons we don’t know_. However, the _evidential_ problem of evil – that each instance of suffering gives us reason to doubt omnimax god’s existence – is another matter entirely. I’ve heard several people assert that Plantinga’s argument deals with this too, but never any explanation of how. ---
**Author:** ![noAxioms](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/noaxioms/32/658_2.png) [@noAxioms](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/noAxioms)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2026, 6:04pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/167 "2026-09-05T18:04:47Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > I’m here focusing on disproofs of God. The title is ‘failure of generic arguments against God’, not failure of disproofs of God. Are we moving the goalpost then? You list 10, ranging from reasonable to good evidence against a god, but none being disproofs, just like none of the ‘evidence for a god’ constitute a proof. So similar to your refutation of 2, lack of disproof does not constitute a proof. Arguments 2,3,8,10 are pretty strong in my opinion. The others seem to attack not god, but specific aspects of what some but not all think the god should be. Not listed: If the deity wanted (is something that ‘wants’ in the first place) to reveal itself, the same story would arise independently in separate cultures, and not evolve from even earlier stories such as is the case with all today’s modern religions. A deity that is not revealing cannot enforce any kind of ‘objective’ morality on anything. Another: It seems pretty funny that any deity would change his morals along with the local fashion of the time. These are both in the weak category since they argue against certain aspects and not against the base idea. ---
**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 5, 2026, 9:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/168 "2026-09-05T21:38:19Z")
An argument against X is an argument that not-X. I’ve refuted the latter. This doesn’t mesan X, correct and I never said that. If we prove that a certain god- quality doesn’t go with what we know then God can’t be. I never said God wanted to reveal himself and anyway the same story does arise in all cultures, the story of powerful beings. Love is universal. ---
**Author:** ![noAxioms](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/noaxioms/32/658_2.png) [@noAxioms](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/noAxioms)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 12:54am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/169 "2026-09-06T00:54:33Z")
Thanks for your reply, and apologies for jumping in a couple weeks late, without yet reading most of the comments. > [@Scorpion](#): > > An argument against X is an argument that not-X. I’ve refuted the latter. I think your 10 points in the OP typically do indeed argue for not-X, yes. They’re poorly refuted IMO. For example: > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. Yes, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is oft quoted, but flat out wrong. Absence of evidence is very much evidence of absence, just not proof of it, especially if the thing in question is extraordinary. So for instance, the lack of evidence for Santa is pretty dang good evidence of absence of Santa, but not proof of it. Your refutation implies otherwise. Another example: > [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. a universe that just is is much simpler than a universe + God. Refuted by the question, why is there something rather than nothing? God doesn’t resolve that, since one can ask ‘why is there god instead of not god?’. This also presumes that there is something, a problem much more easily solved by not presuming as much. Unfortunately, it’s a bias quite difficult for most to question. But that question is why I abandoned realism, a much simpler solution that adding something even more unlikely. > If we prove that a certain god-quality doesn’t go with what we know then God can’t be. Again this does not follow. I just shows that if there’s a god, you don’t know all its qualities. You say ‘what we know’ but very little is ‘known’ (proven). So ‘posited’ seems more appropriate in your statement. Belief in a god seems ultimately dependent on faith. They teach this as a virtue instead of a line indicating deceit. Does this car you’re selling me have brakes? I don’t see them. Well have faith. They’re in there despite lack of evidence or ability to stop on the test drive. > [@](#): > > I never said God wanted to reveal himself and anyway the same story does arise in all cultures, the story of powerful beings. No, but it perhaps belongs on the list of common arguments. Sure, all methods of social control (just like Santa) have common elements like ‘powerful beings’, but the story behind it is never the same. ---
**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 6, 2026, 1:03am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/170 "2026-09-06T01:03:26Z")
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You never accept the null, you can only reject it. Occam’s razor doesn’t go with the question, why is there something rather than nothing? Immediately we see the need for a creation factor. If there’s suffering then God is not Good i.e. the quality of goodness is unsuitable for the creator. You’re cherry-picking. I might as well. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/frank/32/216_2.png) [@Frank](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 1:09am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/171 "2026-09-06T01:09:56Z")
Santa Claus is a method of social control? ---
**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 6, 2026, 1:22am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/172 "2026-09-06T01:22:24Z")
More of a money-making scheme. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/frank/32/216_2.png) [@Frank](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 1:31am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/173 "2026-09-06T01:31:51Z")
That’s true. ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 2:17am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/174 "2026-09-06T02:17:21Z")
> [@noAxioms](#): > > Absence of evidence is very much evidence of absence, just not proof of it, especially if the thing in question is extraordinary. I remember someone asking Mother Teresa what she thought God was like. ‘Very humble, very ordinary’, came the reply. ---
**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 6, 2026, 6:13am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/175 "2026-09-06T06:13:46Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > 1. **Occam’s razor.** The argument from simplicity states that a universe that just is is much simpler than a universe + God. **Refuted by the question,** why is there something rather than nothing? I disagree. That ‘there is _some_thing rather than _no_thing’ **suggests** there has always been _no_thing – not even “God” – to prevent _some_thing (e.g. the universe) from coming-to-be or continuing-to-be or ceasing-to-be. ---
**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 6, 2026, 6:36am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/176 "2026-09-06T06:36:36Z")
That can be challenged by the scenario, either it’ll snow or it’ll not. Whether it snows or does not there has to be a reason. It can’t just snow or not snow, right? ---
**Author:** ![boyjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@boyjohn](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/boyjohn)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 9:20am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/177 "2026-09-06T09:20:20Z")
Not to worry, if God does not exist, humans will invent him ( is he male ?) ---
**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 6, 2026, 9:46am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/178 "2026-09-06T09:46:16Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Occam’s razor doesn’t go with the question, why is there something rather than nothing? Immediately we see the need for a creation factor. A non-sequitur and a non-answer (kicks the can down the road) ---
**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 6, 2026, 12:15pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/179 "2026-09-06T12:15:48Z")
Answer: Why is there something rather than nothing? ---
**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 6, 2026, 12:27pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/180 "2026-09-06T12:27:58Z")
Invent like algebra or something else? ---
**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 6, 2026, 1:00pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/181 "2026-09-06T13:00:17Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > Answer: Why is there something rather than nothing? If you’re asking me: I don’t know. It’s one of many questions we don’t know the answer to at this time. ---
**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 6, 2026, 1:03pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/182 "2026-09-06T13:03:54Z")
That’s different from the question being a non sequitur. 🙂 ---
**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 6, 2026, 1:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/183 "2026-09-06T13:26:48Z")
Sure and that’s not the reason for saying it’s a non sequitur. I’ll do my own version. Why is there something rather than nothing? Immediately we see the need for a creation factor magic-juice, which is a thing I just defined that becomes a universe. Therefore, magic-juice. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=8) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715.md?page=10)