IS THERE ANY GOD?

 

                               Is there any god ?

Suppose someone gets so much power that he can do anything, and that person decides to create a world with humans in it. If he is a good person at heart, it is natural that he will create a world where there is no sadness, no suffering, and everyone will be happy. However, if he is a sadistic person (someone who loves and enjoys seeing others suffer), he will create a world where there is mass suffering so that the sadistic creator can enjoy it.

Now, no one can deny that mass suffering exists on Earth. Happiness is a rare commodity on planet Earth, but sadness and suffering are abundant. No one can also deny the fact that many religious scriptures proudly state that it is God who created the universe, planet Earth, humans—everything—and that God is all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing. So, can we say God is a sadist (if we assume the theist viewpoint that God exists)? Just think about it: why would an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God create a world where there is suffering if He could, with the blink of an eye, create a heaven-like world for humans, where there is eternal happiness?

Now some theists would argue that for experiencing happiness suffering is essential. But I have some issue regarding this idea First and foremost, it is essential to recognize the subjective nature of happiness. Happiness varies dramatically from person to person, shaped by individual experiences, values, and perspectives. Many individuals find joy, fulfilment, and contentment in their lives without enduring significant suffering. For instance, moments of happiness can arise from simple pleasures, meaningful relationships, or personal achievements, often existing independently of any suffering. This suggests that while suffering can enhance our appreciation of happiness—acting as a contrasting backdrop—it is not a prerequisite for the experience of happiness itself. Those theists who say both have to coexist side by side , they have never experienced how happiness feels without  any kind of suffering then how they know that for happiness to be experienced , suffering is a prerequisite Moreover, the argument that suffering and happiness must coexist introduces a paradox. If happiness is fundamentally dependent on suffering, then the pursuit of alleviating suffering could be seen as futile. Yet, most ethical frameworks and philosophical traditions advocate for the reduction of suffering precisely because it contributes to overall well-being.

so, this implies two things, either 1) he is not willing to create such a world or 2) he is not at all powerful, all good, all knowledgeable and if point 1 is true then this implies, he is a sadist creature who loves to see human suffer or indifferent to human suffering

now someone will sure give a counter argument like this ...God created suffering so that people can grow from it and go to highest order or form...

but this argument is also looking flawed. Let me show you how….

If a creator is all-powerful, it could presumably design beings that don’t need suffering to “grow.” Instead, they could be made as complete beings with inherent goodness, wisdom, and logical reasoning. The fact that this isn't the case suggests either a deliberate choice to make beings incomplete (implying a degree of sadism or indifference) or a limitation in power (meaning the creator cannot make fully capable beings).so we are back to that same conclusion that either he is not all good or not all powerful

Consider this analogy of humans creating robots. When we build robots, we aim to make them fully capable from the start, as complete and efficient as possible, even though our own limitations mean these machines still have flaws. Yet, an all-powerful deity would presumably have no such limitations. If humans can strive to create complete beings within their limited capacity, why would an omnipotent creator not create fully realized beings, free of the need for painful development?

Same goes for suffering as a necessity to go to so called highest order or form. If the creator or God is already capable of creating a heaven like world in highest order or form, then why cannot he create a heaven like world in planet earth in first place. then there would be no need to go to highest order or form...

so, in both analysis we can decipher again those two things which we concluded earlier that either God is not all powerful, all-good, all-wise or he is not willing to do.

Some beliefs, such as deism, hold that God created the universe but does not intervene in its daily operations This is often used to explain suffering as a byproduct of natural laws. Now the god in deism looks a bit questionable ……why is he not intervening after creating it ...is it willingly or he cannot do it. If he is willingly not intervening, then this approach raises additional questions. If God created the natural laws, could they not have been designed to avoid suffering? If this God is unwilling to intervene, it suggests indifference to human suffering. A truly benevolent being would not watch pain unfold without intervening. This passive stance resembles that of someone who observes a house on fire but does nothing to help, a morally questionable position at best. And if he cannot do it then he looks weak not as all powerful, all knowledgeable

now again there is another belief system called which is called pantheism...which basically equate God with whole universe.... now this is different from traditional views where God is in above in some form and looking after everything...here whole universe is God .... everywhere is God.

This raises the question of why such laws that allow for suffering were created in the first place. This implication suggests that the pantheistic creator God is either unwilling to create a world free from suffering or lacks the power to do so.

 Pantheists might argue that the universe, operates according to natural laws that are essential for its functioning. These laws maintain balance and order, even if they sometimes result in suffering. Just as a living organism must operate within certain biological limits, the universe must operate within its own natural laws.

but this argument too looks flawed because all living organism functions within biological limits and these limits are set by the natural laws which is itself is created by pantheist god...but if the pantheistic being is highest being then who can impose limits on pantheistic being that he has to create such a law which is creating suffering

 

Many religious traditions hold that human minds are limited and cannot fully understand divine will or the creator’s reasons for allowing suffering. This view posits that what appears as suffering might be part of a larger, benevolent plan beyond human comprehension. I will elaborate on this later but let me say for now This counter is often criticized as a “mystery” argument, which can feel unsatisfying since it does not provide a tangible answer. Additionally, appealing to mystery does not directly address why an all-powerful being would not create a universe without suffering if that was an option.

Another traditional belief regarding God is that we cannot criticize, mock, or disrespect or even question Him because He controls everything (assuming God exists). This mindset parallels the behaviour of totalitarian figures like Hitler and Stalin, who did not tolerate any disrespect or ridicule. In a sense, God resembles absolute monarchs; the key difference being that we are born by God merely to serve as His subjects.

This belief creates a vertical hierarchical relationship where we have little control over our lives. Instead, we are born to serve Him amidst the suffering He has created, only to die while our suffering may serve as His entertainment. Furthermore, it seems that only humans are required to serve, while animals appear to have been created for mere amusement, as they lack any concept of God.

Traditional theistic beliefs often counter that, unlike human tyrants, God’s “demand” for respect is out of wisdom and goodness, not personal gain, or insecurity. But I have shown earlier how this all good, all wisdom, all powerful looks flawed.

And if we assume he has all the best qualities then this argument can be made that why an all-powerful deity would need reverence or be intolerant of criticism at all if truly secure and benevolent.

Now theists might say that just like we respect those who helped us similarly we are showing our respect to God for creating us.

now this point can be countered again by saying Why should we revere a creator who allows suffering and injustice to persist? The expectation of reverence from an imperfect or limited deity raises moral questions. If we hold humans accountable for their actions, shouldn't a creator be held to a higher standard? Respect should not be unconditional; it should be contingent upon the virtues demonstrated by the entity. While humans often respect inventors and creators, this respect is predicated on the creators' contributions to human welfare and progress. If a deity allows suffering, then why should that deity be treated differently?

 

we humans worship god not just respect or thank god for its creation, we humans do it so that god listens to our prayers and help alleviate the suffering but if he not willing or cannot do...what is point of worship then? why should we waste time on worshipping god if he does not alleviate the sufferings or he cannot do for which he is directly or indirectly responsible

Why is there injustice if God exists? Why do innocent, good people suffer and die for wrong reasons while many bad and evil individuals do not face punishment for their actions? This cycle continues unabated. For instance, many died due to the disastrous policies of Mao Zedong, yet he died peacefully and without remorse. The same can be said for Stalin, who is often revered as a hero or revolutionary figure.

Consider Harry Truman, the then-President of the United States, who, from his cozy chair, decided that innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki must die in one of the most brutal ways imaginable. Thousands suffered painful deaths, yet he faced no charges or consequences, dying peacefully and never regretting his decision.

Similar examples abound, such as Churchill's role in the Bengal famine and Nixon's brutal Vietnam War, among many others.

In one of the concentration camps, an unknown individual scrawled on the wall: "If there is a God, He will have to beg for my forgiveness." This person likely endured unimaginable pain—suffering that has no parallel on Earth. Yet, despite this suffering, the unknown person never received God's forgiveness.

Finally, the idea of a God who is "beyond human comprehension” that we cannot understand him now this creates a contradiction because on one hand they say god is incomprehensible then how they(who claims god is beyond human comprehension) know everything about that god in first place …..is god only selectively comprehensible to few persons only and if yes, why god selected them only and why god is playing hide and seek with others then and how can we believe those “few persons” who alone have understanding of incomprehensible god…as you can see this logic starts to look absurd

 

There is also classic ‘God of gaps’ theory which invokes God where humans and science cannot explain. This is the tendency to invoke God to explain phenomena we currently cannot understand. Historically, this approach often resulted in beliefs that science later challenged (like attributing lightning to divine anger before understanding atmospheric electricity) When scientists encounter points of uncertainty, they may propose theories or hypotheses, but they do not assert these as absolute truths. In contrast, religion often takes a different approach. For instance, when faced with questions that science cannot currently explain—such as what happened before the Big Bang—science acknowledges its limitations and states, "I don't know." However, religion tends to fill that gap with the assertion that because we lack understanding, it must be attributed to the existence of God.

.

till now we have taken the big assumption that god or creator exists and tried to counter every argument logically...and we found till now that if god exists either he is a sadist by nature who has no interest in solving mass suffering of the world or solving selectively if he is pleased by the prayer of his devotee or he is a very weak god who is not all powerful all knowledgeable

but where is the evidence of God? the burden of proof lies on those who believe in the existence of God not those who does not believe and till no one could show God...but, often now and then we hear that someone had a spiritual divine experience ...now these phenomena can also be explained by using field of psychology...

 

 There is an argument which posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist; therefore, it must have a cause, which many identify as God. The concept of an uncaused cause is often used to explain the existence of God.

Now this can be countered by saying that if everything that begins to exist has a cause, then God must also have a cause. This challenges the idea of God as an uncaused cause, suggesting that if God doesn’t require a cause, there’s no reason the universe couldn’t also be uncaused and that we know universe begins just after big bang but we don’t yet know what happened before big bang now just because we don’t understand what happened before the Big Bang does not justify inferring the existence of God as an explanation. This is a classic use of the "God of the gaps" argument, which asserts that gaps in scientific knowledge are often filled with divine explanations. This critique emphasizes the importance of relying on evidence and the scientific method rather than filling unknowns with assumptions.

A common argument for the existence of God hinges on the notion of "intelligent design"—that the complexity and order we observe in the universe imply the work of a conscious creator, much like a watch requires a watchmaker. However, while this design analogy may seem compelling at first glance, it fails under closer scrutiny. A careful examination reveals inconsistencies and inefficiencies in both the natural world and the universe at large, raising questions about the necessity of a designer, or at least the attributes traditionally assigned to one.

In the case of a human-made object, like a watch, we can see the process unfold: the watchmaker actively assembles its parts. However, no such direct evidence exists for a divine creator actively shaping or intervening in the universe. Science has not uncovered any phenomenon that points specifically to a supernatural designer as a necessary agent in the creation or maintenance of cosmic order. This absence of direct evidence places the burden of proof on those claiming a divine creator’s existence rather than on those who argue for natural processes.

The design argument assumes complexity and order in nature as proof of divine intention. Yet, science provides robust explanations for the universe’s formation and the complexity within it without needing a divine hand. Fields like cosmology, physics, and evolutionary biology reveal natural processes through which the universe and life have developed. The Big Bang theory, for example, describes how matter and energy emerged and transformed to form galaxies, stars, and planets over billions of years. Similarly, evolution explains the complexity and diversity of life on Earth as the result of natural selection—a process of adaptation through which life forms evolve over time. These scientific explanations offer concrete mechanisms and evidence, whereas the design argument rests on the assumption that complexity must equate to intention.

If the universe were indeed designed by an all-powerful, benevolent being, it would be logical to expect a world free from harmful, purposeless elements. However, we observe many such inefficiencies:

Vestigial Organs: The human appendix is largely useless, prone to inflammation, and even deadly when infected. If a perfect designer were responsible, why would such a risky, purposeless organ exist?

Natural Disasters: Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions are byproducts of tectonic activity, an essential feature of Earth’s structure. Yet, they often bring mass suffering, injury, and loss of life. If nature was benevolently designed, why would it include mechanisms that cause such destruction?

Predation and Parasitism: Many organisms depend on predation or parasitism to survive, often causing suffering for other species. Malaria, for example, is caused by the Plasmodium parasite and devastates human populations. Such brutality within nature appears incompatible with the concept of a compassionate designer.

While Earth sustains life, most of the universe remains entirely uninhabitable. Extreme environments, lethal radiation, and vast empty spaces characterize the vast majority of cosmic territory. If a deity intended to create a universe for life, it appears highly inefficient for such a tiny portion to be liveable. This raises questions about the purpose of such overwhelming cosmic desolation if life was indeed the central goal of a designer.

Even within Earth’s relatively safe environment, life faces constant existential risks, from asteroid impacts and solar flares to other cosmic events. If the universe were designed for life, one would expect that such catastrophic threats would be minimized. Instead, these risks persist, suggesting an indifference to life rather than a design intended to safeguard it.

Evolutionary biology offers an explanation for the development of life that relies on trial and error rather than design. Through natural selection, species adapt to their environments, sometimes flourishing and other times hitting evolutionary “dead ends.” The randomness of these adaptations, which include both beneficial traits and apparent biological “mistakes,” suggests a natural, undirected process. If an omnipotent deity were responsible, it would be more logical to expect a flawless design rather than a system riddled with inefficiencies and apparent errors.

In conclusion, the design argument for a divine creator struggles against both the lack of direct evidence and the presence of inefficiencies, dangers, and suffering within the natural world. If a deity exists and is responsible for the universe’s creation, the flaws in both its mechanics and biological systems suggest limitations in capability, intention, or an approach of non-interference. This contradiction challenges traditional religious concepts of an omnipotent, benevolent creator and points instead to a universe shaped by natural forces rather than divine design.

BETRAND RUSSELL In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952 wrote:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Just as one cannot disprove the existence of a hypothetical teapot that is too small to be detected by our telescopes, one cannot definitively disprove the existence of God, as some theists claim that God is beyond human comprehension. However, the inability to disprove the teapot's existence does not automatically imply that it exists. Similarly, if we are hesitant to assert the existence of the teapot, why should we assume that God exists?

Furthermore, this analogy suggests that the burden of proof should lie with the person claiming the existence of the teapot orbiting the sun. In the same vein, the burden of proof should also rest on the individual asserting the existence of God, rather than on those who deny it.

In response to the question of why billions of people adhere to religion and believe in some form of God, even in the face of philosophical critiques, one must consider several profound factors that influence human belief.

First and foremost, religion often serves as a source of comfort in times of suffering. When individuals confront hardship, loss, or existential dread, religion offers explanations and meaning that can alleviate distress. It provides answers to life's most troubling questions, such as the reason for suffering. For many, the idea that suffering has a divine purpose can bring a sense of relief and understanding.

Moreover, the complexities of the world can be overwhelming. For instance, in ancient times, phenomena such as solar eclipses and thunderstorms were attributed to divine actions due to a lack of scientific understanding. Religion simplifies these complexities by providing straightforward explanations that can be easily grasped. This accessibility can be particularly appealing in a world that often feels chaotic and unpredictable.

Additionally, religion fosters a sense of identity and belonging. It connects individuals to a community that shares similar beliefs and values, creating a sense of unity and support. This social aspect of religion can be incredibly reassuring, especially in times of isolation or uncertainty.

One of the most difficult truths we face is the inevitability of death. The finality of life can provoke deep anxiety about mortality. Religion addresses this concern by offering concepts such as an afterlife or reincarnation, which can provide individuals with a sense of immortality and continuity beyond physical existence. These beliefs can be profoundly comforting, allowing individuals to cope with the fear of their own mortality.

 

Then what are my actual religious beliefs?

My actual beliefs on religion can be summarized by quoting Bertrand Russell again: "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist."

Just as I cannot disprove the existence of a teapot, I am perfectly fine living my life with the belief that it does not exist. Similarly, while I cannot fully disprove the existence of God, I choose to live my life as if God does not exist, just as I do with the teapot.

 

While I identify as an agnostic atheist, I do not advocate for the eradication of religion or harbour resentment toward it. For many people facing profound suffering, religion offers solace, guidance, and relief. I recognize this value and, therefore, have no desire to mock or dismiss others' beliefs.

Respecting religious symbols, images, and idols is important to me, even though I may not share the faith they represent. I refrain from making jokes or displaying disrespect toward religious icons because, while they may not hold significance for me, they are deeply meaningful to billions of others. This respect is akin to the way we honour the images of our parents or ancestors; we don’t spit on these images, not because doing so would harm them physically, but because the act would convey profound disrespect for those we love.

Similarly, just as we honour the memory and legacy of those we cherish, I choose to show respect for the symbols that carry weight in others’ lives. I may not believe in these representations of faith, but I acknowledge the importance they hold for so many, and I refrain from actions that might undermine or insult that belief.