In various works that have discussed the hiddenness of God, there have been different interpretations of this argument, each with its own characteristics. None of these works fully explain all the versions of the proof of the hiddenness of God.The innovation of the preceding article is the complete enumeration of all the versions of the proof of divine concealment; its second innovation is the presentation of a novel classification of these versions, which is not presented in any of the works mentioned.Research Method: This article seeks to use an analytical-documentary method to infer and enumerate all the proposed versions of this argument and to identify the approaches that govern them, so that the aspects that should be observed in the critique of this argument can be identified.Research findings: The study conducted on these interpretations reveals that in all the interpretations, which are divided into two general categories: deductive and inductive;Two approaches stand out in them; some have argued with an ontological approach and some with an epistemological approach. This is because the focus of some versions is based on the statement of the absence of a relationship between God and the servant and they have considered divine concealment in the sense that such an experience does not occur on both sides of the relationship. In the other group of versions, the epistemological approach prevails.Because the core of the arguments is based on showing the absence of evidence, proof, and proof of the existence of God - including the lack of experience of God's presence - in human life.