# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 396
**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 24, 2026, 2:01am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715/396 "2026-09-24T02:01:25Z")
I’m losing the plot as the discussion veers off in different directions. I had started the thread as a counterpoint to **Banno** ’s thread on [failures in generic arguments for the existence of God](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577). The point is that disproofs of God are as refutable as proofs of God. I’ve attempted to list some of the disproofs in this thread. It’s no surprise that there are very few of them. As @180Proof says atheism is when theism can’t meet the onus probandi. However in all fairness atheists who claim God doesn’t exist also have to bear the burden of proof which they haven’t. The only reasonable position is agnosticism. There’s no issue with either theism or atheism that’s adopted under an agnostic umbrella. Agnostic theist and agnostic atheist are valid positions. Second, some of the theistic arguments I presented (objective morality and order) don’t adequately justify the existence of an OOO-God. There’s no point in contributors pulling on those threads unless they find them satisfactory proofs of God. I’ve also assumed a liberal stance on the nature of God, willing to accept a Deus malus or a God that’s not omnipotent or omniscient. Here I see a good opportunity for acceptance but God’s a mere shadow of the God as popularly conceived - there’s less to disagree on if God’s not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent but what a sad God this is for theists. Lastly, a fact we can’t ignore is that some intelligent, educated, well-informed folk (mathematicians, scientists, philosophers) are theists (not deists) i.e. they believe in the OOO-God (the Christian God is a common choice). This calls into question the belief, and dispels the common misconception, that God is some kind of delusion or is the consequence of brain failure. I wish to direct attention towards this anomaly in atheism’s general claim to be rational and that theism is irrational. _Those who wish to contribute (@Michael and others) please do so on this matter or on God as not omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent._ * * * > I beseech you from the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken ~ Cromwell’s rule --- _[View the full topic](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/generic-failures-in-arguments-for-the-nonexistence-god/2715)._