Graham Opi has been heavily criticized The proofs of God's existence. He acknowledges the rationality of traditional proofs of the existence of God, but does not consider them "successful" in proving God. His criterion for the success of an argument is all the wise men who had previously rejected the result or they were agnosticism to it, convince them to reform, modify and rebuild their ideas. This article seeks to find an answer to this question: This research seeks to find an answer to this question: Is the Opi criterion acceptable in presenting a successful argument?
And what are the challenges to this criterion? The findings of the article show that his criterion, which based on that denies all the traditional arguments for proving God’ existence, is not only realistic but also violates itself. He seems, regardless of the difference between rational reason and wisely reason  and defending some kind of maximal rationality, by providing a vague criterion, to be promoting modern atheism in the cover of skepticism..