# On generic failures found in arguments for the existence of god **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Religion\ **Tags:** god, wiki\ **Created:** [August 16, 2026, 11:31pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577 "2026-08-16T23:31:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 50
**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:** [October 6, 2026, 4:59pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/999 "2026-10-06T16:59:35Z")
> [@Drewpaul2000](#): > > the universe **began to exist** 13.8 billion years ago. False. That is a popilar misconception pointed out as such to Pope Pius XII by the Catholic priest and physicist George Lemaître. > [@GregW](#): > > How is “perfection” self-defeating? I didn’t claim or imply “perfection is self-defeating”; rather the equivocating and inconsistent way you use the term is nonsensical. Clearly, by any ordinary use of “perfect”, “all powerful” is perfect and, by comparison, less-than-“all powerful” is not perfect; in other words, “perfectly powerful”, at the very least, includes “all powerful”, which defeats (your) OOO-God apologia and returns to the conclusion of _Epicurus’ Riddle_: “Then why call him God?” 🤔 ---
**Author:** ![Drewpaul2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Drewpaul2000](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Drewpaul2000)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2026, 5:05pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1000 "2026-10-06T17:05:39Z")
It was pointed out by Hubble and confirmed by finding the CMB. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2026, 5:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1001 "2026-10-06T17:12:46Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > With that logic, we could just as easily claim that Corvus doesn’t exist, that he’s an AI bot on a philosophy forum, or even a fairy. We could establish literally anything that way. That claim seem to be ignorant of even what the topic is. Here the topic is the existence of God. If it is your own God, you can say whatever for the existence. No one really cares about it. But when the topic is the existence of God for the world, the proof needs to be based on the objective material existence. If not, it is not a proof. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2026, 5:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1003 "2026-10-06T17:26:17Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > You’re missing the point completely. If direct empirical observation is required before we can accept something as real, then we can deny your existence just as easily. You are indeed. No one is wanting to prove my existence. I don’t need to prove my own existence. You are suddenly changing the subject from the existence of God to existence of a person. This is a serious confusion and misleading the debate. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2026, 5:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1004 "2026-10-06T17:38:19Z")
Not at all. Edwin Hubble observed evidence of cosmic expansion and the CMB is the observable limit of the universe when it’s current development was only about 380,000 years old. **Neither are evidence of a “beginning of tne universe”,** only indirect evidences of a universe that superluminally expanded to about 90% of its (observable) size from an exponentially smaller-radius, higher energy-density (hotter) state. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2026, 5:40pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1005 "2026-10-06T17:40:13Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > I have no direct access to you or your existence as a person, I only have evidence from your words and behavior and infer that you exist. So the absence of direct observation does not justify denying something’s existence. Humans and material objects can be seen when in the observable space and time physically. The reason that you cannot see a human being is he is not in the space and time within your sight. God is supposed to be omnipresent which transcends space and time, and can exist everywhere and through all times. So human existence and existence of God are in totally different. Even if humans cannot be seen, God must be still visible. You just need to prove it. We are debating here how can you prove the existence of God **(not humans)**, and what is the general faults found in the arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2026, 5:52pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1006 "2026-10-06T17:52:12Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > The same standard could be applied when reasoning about God’s existence. You are confusing human existence and God existence. They are not the same. This type of silly confusions and misleading claims are one of the generic failures in arguement for the existence of God. ---
**Author:** ![Drewpaul2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Drewpaul2000](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Drewpaul2000)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2026, 7:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1007 "2026-10-06T19:20:52Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > Not at all. Edwin Hubble observed evidence of cosmic expansion and the CMB is the observable limit of the universe when it’s current development was only about 380,000 years old. **Neither are evidence of a “beginning of tne universe”,** Its evidence that what we label the universe (spacetime, the laws of physics, the existence of matter and the four fundamental forces) began to exist 13.8 billion years ago. Some folks insist anything prior to the big bang is also the universe but not in any manner in which we define the universe today. > superluminally expanded to about 90% of its (observable) size from an exponentially smaller-radius, higher energy-density (hotter) state. At which time it became what we know as the universe. It wasn’t the same as ice turning into water…not remotely. It actually doesn’t matter to my claim the universe was intentionally caused. It doesn’t depend on when the universe (as we know it) was caused. It depends on the myriads of conditions, laws of physics and properties of matter that caused life to exist. 13 billion years ago the universe was dark cold and incapable of causing life. It spend 9 billions years creating all the conditions that would enable a planet earth to exist. You say it was happenstance I say otherwise. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2026, 9:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1008 "2026-10-06T21:06:10Z")
> [@Drewpaul2000](#): > > he universe (spacetime, the laws of physics, the existence of matter and the four fundamental forces) **began to exist** 13.8 billion years ago False. > [@Drewpaul2000](#): > > 13 billion years ago the universe was dark cold and **incapable of causing life.** Another false statement. > [@Drewpaul2000](#): > > **You say** it was happenstance Where did I say that? And how is “happenstance” substantively different from “divine fiat”? ---
**Author:** ![Pantagruel](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/pantagruel/32/472_2.png) [@Pantagruel](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Pantagruel)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 9:17am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1009 "2026-10-07T09:17:50Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > One should be careful not to fall into the trap of making conclusions from one’s own psychological consolation, prejudice or judgement illusioning themselves that it is their reasoned congnition. Exactly. One should. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 9:23am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1010 "2026-10-07T09:23:52Z")
We could start with the question such as what is existence? Existence is either material or immaterial. But can immaterial be existence? ---
**Author:** ![Pantagruel](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/pantagruel/32/472_2.png) [@Pantagruel](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Pantagruel)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 12:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1011 "2026-10-07T12:43:18Z")
Why worry about what doesn’t exist? This would be my definition of existence: existence is anything that matters. Pun intended. ---
**Author:** ![Sidr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sidr](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Sidr)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 1:08pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1012 "2026-10-07T13:08:37Z")
Why are we presupposing existence in the first place 😂 ---
**Author:** ![Drewpaul2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Drewpaul2000](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Drewpaul2000)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 2:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1013 "2026-10-07T14:38:52Z")
_13 billion years ago the universe was dark cold and **incapable of causing life.** _ > Another false statement. Any plans to back up the statement or should it be ignored like the rest of your post? ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 4:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1014 "2026-10-07T16:13:22Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > > [@180Proof](#): > > > > Imo, Greg, your _not making sense_ (re: “perfection”) is self-defeating. > > How is “perfection” self-defeating? > [@180Proof](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > How is “perfection” self-defeating? > > I didn’t claim or imply “perfection is self-defeating”; rather the equivocating and inconsistent way you use the term is nonsensical. Clearly, by any ordinary use of “perfect”, “all powerful” is perfect and, by comparison, less-than-“all powerful” is not perfect; in other words, “perfectly powerful”, at the very least, includes “all powerful”, which defeats (your) OOO-God apologia and returns to the conclusion of _Epicurus’ Riddle_: “Then why call him God?” 🤔 Your argument is that “all powerful” is perfect and, “perfectly powerful”, at the very least, includes “all powerful”. My argument is that perfectly powerful is not the same as all powerful because perfect power can be used only for good and not for evil, while all powerful/absolute power can be used for good as well as evil. This makes all powerful/absolute power imperfect. But God’s perfect goodness can restraint all powerful/absolute power from evil, absolute power then becomes perfect power, in the hand of God, which cannot be used for evil. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2026, 6:59pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1015 "2026-10-07T18:59:44Z")
Ignore my post like you ignore scientific facts. ---
**Author:** ![Drewpaul2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Drewpaul2000](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Drewpaul2000)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 8:34pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1016 "2026-10-07T20:34:19Z")
That’s false. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 8:40pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1017 "2026-10-07T20:40:42Z")
> [@Pantagruel](#): > > This would be my definition of existence: existence is anything that matters. Pun intended. So, if your dream about your God riding an unicorn last night matters to you, do they exist? Is your content of dream existence, if it matters to you? ---
**Author:** ![Banno](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/banno/32/55_2.png) [@Banno](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Banno)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1018 "2026-10-07T20:50:18Z")
Over a thousand replies, yet still no need for a revision of the opening post. ---
**Author:** ![Pantagruel](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/pantagruel/32/472_2.png) [@Pantagruel](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Pantagruel)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2026, 9:57pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1019 "2026-10-07T21:57:16Z")
Not something that matters a whole lot to me. I’ve had prescient dreams; those might be said to matter. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577.md?page=49) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577.md?page=51)