# 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:** 53
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 12:32am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1080 "2026-10-12T00:32:57Z")
Ok cool, so that’s one attribute of god which doesn’t appear necessary to equivocally define it with the word love so we keep love and get rid of god, either way doesn’t matter for now. so let me bring you another definition of god. Omniscient, the ability to see everything past, present and future. How would you disprove such an attribute in and of itself without disproving god ? That is the existence of the attribute itself not necessarily god … does the attribute exist ? (At least without god) ---
**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 12, 2026, 12:38am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1081 "2026-10-12T00:38:45Z")
> [@invicta](#): > > How would you disprove such an attribute in and of itself without disproving god ? That is the existence of the attribute itself not necessarily god … does the attribute exist ? (At least without god) I am not sure I understand the question. Presumably an attribute exists if there is some individual to which it applies. So are you asking me why I don’t think there is something that “sees” past, present and future? Because I haven’t any reason to think such a thing exists. Have you an argument that demonstrates there is such a thing? See how the burden of proof falls here, @Scorpion . ---
**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 12, 2026, 12:41am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1082 "2026-10-12T00:41:09Z")
> [@Banno](#): > > Because I haven’t any reason to think such a thing exists. I’ll respond to this: You also don’t have any reason to think such a thing does not exist. There are agnostic atheists by the way. ---
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 12:48am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1084 "2026-10-12T00:48:15Z")
We can invoke Spinoza’s version of god as it might be useful when it comes to the omniscient definition: that is that the total system of nature contains all knowledge about itself. I’m not quite satisfied that this meets the true definition of omniscience however as whilst spinozas version certainly contains all knowledge, it only does so in the present at least, but as the present becomes the past and was once the future then this argument makes more sense. ---
**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 12, 2026, 12:58am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1085 "2026-10-12T00:58:03Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > Do you have a reason why such a thing doesn’t exist? Hm. > Last night I saw upon the stair… Yes; that those who support it have not been able to present a coherent account of what it might be. I’ll happily populate the domain of discourse with items that can be subject to a predicate. There are presumably an indenumerable number of other items you would include, that are not subject to any predicate. Which one is god? 😂 ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:01am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1086 "2026-10-12T01:01:01Z")
> [@invicta](#): > > the total system of nature contains all knowledge about itself Knowledge is had by humans, humans are part of nature, so sure. But more analytically, that looks to be a simple misuse of the word “knowledge”. Rocks know very little, by our ordinary accounts. ---
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 1:04am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1088 "2026-10-12T01:04:46Z")
Yes perhaps a misuse of the word knowledge, what if instead of knowledge i use the term information instead. Does that change anything ? ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:12am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1089 "2026-10-12T01:12:22Z")
Life is short. I’m not watching your video. If you have an argument, set it out. (Enoch - that’s the one with Angles fucking humans, and the poor astronomy… yes? Interesting choice.) ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:13am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1090 "2026-10-12T01:13:09Z")
> [@invicta](#): > > , what if instead of knowledge i use the term information instead. Does that change anything ? You tell me. What does your argument now become? ---
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 1:14am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1091 "2026-10-12T01:14:14Z")
It would remove your objection regarding rocks having knowledge or knowing. ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:17am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1092 "2026-10-12T01:17:25Z")
Leaving…? That the universe contains all the information there is? Ok. Now, what about god? ---
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 1:19am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1093 "2026-10-12T01:19:15Z")
No god needed, just trying to prove an attribute namely omniscience and it appears that such an attribute exists without god. ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:22am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1094 "2026-10-12T01:22:02Z")
And how did that work out? Instead of omniscience you have a stipulation about information and the universe. Yes, I know I’m being a bit of a dick - I should just nod in sagely agreement, like most others hereabouts. But philosophy involves more than making up pleasant just-so stories. ---
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 1:24am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1095 "2026-10-12T01:24:21Z")
So you disagree that the information the universe has about itself is not omniscience ? ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:29am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1097 "2026-10-12T01:29:04Z")
> [@invicta](#): > > So you disagree that the information the universe has about itself is not omniscience ? Hu? You’ve stipulated that omniscience is all the information the universe has about itself… An odd stipulation, to be sure, but that’s what you did. What that means is that “the information the universe has about itself is omniscience” is not a _conclusion_. ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:30am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1098 "2026-10-12T01:30:37Z")
…and now we are back to the very arguments already shown to be wanting. ---
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2026, 1:31am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1099 "2026-10-12T01:31:17Z")
It might not be a conclusion you like but it’s a conclusion nonetheless, actually a reinterpretation of Spinozas conclusion and nothing odd about it. ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:36am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1101 "2026-10-12T01:36:09Z")
Then your argument has eluded me. Your stipulation, paraphrasing, was “We can invoke Spinoza’s version of god as it might be useful when it comes to the omniscient definition: that is that the total system of nature contains all information about itself” And your conclusion is that _therefore_ the total system of nature contains all information about itself. Looks to be just a stipulation that the universe contains all the information there is. Not going to disagree with a mere stipulation. ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:36am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1102 "2026-10-12T01:36:59Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > You haven’t explained why those arguments fall short Kinda have. See the OP, and the following few hundred posts. Do you want to do it again? ---
**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 12, 2026, 1:39am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577/1104 "2026-10-12T01:39:46Z")
The matter is 2-questions 1. Is there Proof(God exists)? 2. Is there Proof(God doesn’t exist)? The answer to both is `NO`. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577.md?page=52) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-generic-failures-found-in-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/2577.md?page=54)