A Scientific Examination of the Non-Existence of an Almighty God

General Theravada topics
1

The concept of an almighty god has been a central tenet of many
religions throughout history. The belief in a divine being or a creator
that has complete control over the world and the lives of its
inhabitants is often seen as a source of comfort and guidance for
many. However, a closer examination of the world and the
experiences of individuals, both believers and non-believers, raises
serious questions about the existence of an almighty god. When
something good happens people praise the almighty God. But when
something bad happens people do not blame the almighty God. It is
because people are afraid that they may prove the none existence of
almighty God that they believe. In Vietnam war where was the
Christian Jehovah almighty god? In Hamas vs Israel war, where was
the Muslim Allah almighty god? When Mughal armies attacked Hindu
kingdoms where was the almighty Brahma mentioned in Hinduism?
People need to see the reality instead of living in fantasies. In this
writing, we will explore the evidence for the non-existence of an
almighty god and the ways in which the world does not appear to be
controlled by such a being.

The Problem of Evil:
One of the most significant challenges to the existence of an almighty
god is the problem of evil. The world is filled with suffering, pain, and
destruction, much of which seems to be completely random and
undeserved. If an almighty god exists and is truly all-powerful, all-loving
and all-knowing, then it is difficult to understand why such a
supreme being or creator would allow for so much suffering in the
world.

Believers of almighty god become sick, experience the destruction of
wealth and money, suffer from poisoning, and become subject to
bomb attacks and natural disasters. Moreover, believers of almighty
god are not immune to the effects of aging, pain, and death. These
experiences are not unique to believers, as non-believers also
experience these same challenges and tragedies.
The fact that both believers and non-believers are subject to
sicknesses, aging, pain, natural disasters, and death equally suggests
that these experiences are not the result of divine intervention or
punishment, but rather are a natural part of the world.

The Absence of Divine Intervention:
Another piece of evidence for the non-existence of an almighty god is
the absence of divine intervention in the world. If an almighty god
exists and is truly all-powerful, then it stands to reason that such a
being would be able to intervene in the world in a clear and
unmistakable way. However, there is little evidence to suggest that
this is the case.

Those who pray for the almighty god become sick and go to see a
doctor, become subject to cancer, and do not receive money from
the almighty god, even if they believe and pray for it. These
experiences suggest that prayer and belief in an almighty god do not
necessarily result in divine intervention or protection.
Moreover, the fact that believers of almighty god come to low ranks
in school, commit suicide, and die in vehicle accidents, despite their
belief and potential prayers for protection, suggests that the world is
not controlled by a divine being or creator that is able to intervene in
a meaningful way.

The Imperfect World:
Another piece of evidence for the non-existence of an almighty god is
the imperfect nature of the world. If an almighty god created the
world, then it stands to reason that such a being would create a
world that is perfect and free from flaws and mistakes. However, the
world is filled with imperfections, injustices, and inequalities.
Believers of almighty god suffer from stupidity and do not receive
good luck always, despite their belief and potential prayers for such
blessings. Moreover, the fact that some persons believe in almighty
god, yet they become subject to pain, sicknesses, and not having
their wishes come true, suggests that the world is not controlled by a
divine being that is able to grant blessings and answer prayers in a
consistent and reliable way.
The fact that both believers and non-believers are subject to the
imperfections of the world equally suggests that these experiences
are not the result of divine intervention or punishment, but rather
are a natural part of the world.

The Existence of Non-Believers:
The fact that non-believers exist is also evidence for the nonexistence
of an almighty god creator. If an almighty god exists and is
truly all-powerful, then it is difficult to understand why such a
supreme being would allow for the existence of individuals who do
not believe in it.
Moreover, the fact that those who do not believe in almighty god are
able to prove the non-existence of such a being, and that the
almighty god never shows itself and defends its existence, suggests
that the concept of an almighty god is a human construct, rather than
a true and objective reality.

In conclusion, the evidence for the non-existence of an almighty god
is compelling. The problem of evil, the absence of divine intervention,
the imperfect nature of the world, and the existence of non-believers
all suggest that the world is not controlled by a divine supreme being
that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. It is important to
critically examine the evidence, nature and consider the ways in
which the world does not appear to be controlled by such a creator
being…

(Translate this into your own language and share among people and friends)

2 Likes
2

You make good points. People always think that their god is the right one, and that he or she will interfere with their human affairs. Many people also tend not to understand the roles that religion and war have historically played for humans.

Here is a little about war:

War is one of the constants of history, and has not diminished with civilization or democracy. In the last 3,421 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war. We have acknowledged war as at present the ultimate form of competition and natural selection in the human species. “Polemos pater panton” said Heracleitus; war, or competition, is the father of all things, the potent source of ideas, inventions, institutions, and states. Peace is an unstable equilibrium, which can be preserved only by acknowledged supremacy or equal power. The causes of war are the same as the causes of competition among individuals: acquisitiveness, pugnacity, and pride; the desire for food, land, materials, fuels, mastery. The state has our instincts without our restraints. The individual submits to restraints laid upon him by morals and laws, and agrees to replace combat with conference, because the state guarantees him basic protection in his life, property, and legal rights. The state itself acknowledges no substantial restraints, either because it is strong enough to defy any interference with its will or because there is no superstate to offer it basic protection, and no international law or moral code wielding effective force…

…In apologetic consolation war now promotes science and technology, whose deadly inventions, if they are not forgotten in universal destitution and barbarism, may later enlarge the material achievements of peace.

Durant, Will; Durant, Ariel. The Lessons of History (p. 75). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

And here is a little bit about the historical role of (most) religions:

Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since he sees it functioning, and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age. To the unhappy, the suffering, the bereaved, the old, it has brought supernatural comforts valued by millions of souls as more precious than any natural aid. It has helped parents and teachers to discipline the young. It has conferred meaning and dignity upon the lowliest existence, and through its sacraments has made for stability by transforming human covenants into solemn relationships with God. It has kept the poor (said Napoleon) from murdering the rich. For since the natural inequality of men dooms many of us to poverty or defeat, some supernatural hope may be the sole alternative to despair. Destroy that hope, and class war is intensified.

Religion does not seem at first to have had any connection with morals. Apparently (for we are merely guessing, or echoing Petronius, who echoed Lucretius) “it was fear that first made the gods”25 —fear of hidden forces in the earth, rivers, oceans, trees, winds, and sky. Religion became the propitiatory worship of these forces through offerings, sacrifice, incantation, and prayer. Only when priests used these fears and rituals to support morality and law did religion become a force vital and rival to the state. It told the people that the local code of morals and laws had been dictated by the gods. It pictured the god Thoth giving laws to Menes for Egypt, the god Shamash giving Hammurabi a code for Babylonia, Yahveh giving the Ten Commandments and 613 precepts to Moses for the Jews, and the divine nymph Egeria giving Numa Pompilius laws for Rome. Pagan cults and Christian creeds proclaimed that earthly rulers were appointed and protected by the gods. Gratefully nearly every state shared its lands and revenues with the priests.

Some recusants have doubted that religion ever promoted morality, since immorality has flourished even in ages of religious domination. Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery, and violence existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half a millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic devastation, and political disorganization would have been much worse without the moderating effect of the Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming, unifying ritual. The Roman Catholic Church labored to reduce slavery, family feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace, and to replace trial by combat or ordeal with the judgments of established courts. It softened the penalties exacted by Roman or barbarian law, and vastly expanded the scope and organization of charity…

…If another great war should devastate Western civilization, the resultant destruction of cities, the dissemination of poverty, and the disgrace of science may leave the Church, as in A.D. 476, the sole hope and guide of those who survive the cataclysm. One lesson of history is that religion has many lives, and a habit of resurrection…

…“As long as there is poverty there will be gods.”32

Durant, Will; Durant, Ariel. The Lessons of History (p. 45). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

I suppose Buddhism does offer some of the same comforts, but it is also unlike every other religion with its refutation of eternalism (as well as nihilism), its teachings of kamma, the noble eightfold path, etc.

“Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?”

“It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole.”

"It’s likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It’s likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It’s likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

“Therefore your duty is the contemplation, ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress.’ Your duty is the contemplation, ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’”

Chiggala Sutta: The Hole (SN 56.48)

Chiggala Sutta: The Hole

Renaldo

1 Like
3

This ranks among the most frivolous and simplistic formulations I’ve encountered — the sort so often parroted by uninformed newcomers to atheism, or irreligion more broadly. Anyone with even a modest grasp of conceptual scrutiny could readily dismantle such arguments — starting with the crucial step of discerning what may be rightly ascribed to his particular god, and what falls beyond the bounds of such attribution. For they [these arguments] are riddled with sweeping generalisations and abrupt leaps between creators whose attributes differ profoundly. I was once engaged in theological discussions, not merely within the Christian sphere, but across the broader Abrahamic domain. It must be considered the divergences in how each religion conceives of the God-creator concept and sovereignty.

2 Likes
4

This post is a nice one.

5

“To argue that history is contingent is to claim that every historical outcome depends upon a number of prior conditions; that each of these prior conditions depends, in turn, upon still other conditions; and so on. The core insight of contingency is that the world is a magnificently interconnected place. Change a single prior condition, and any historical outcome could have turned out differently…

…Contingency demands that students think deeply about past, present, and future. It offers a powerful corrective to teleology, the fallacy that events pursue a straight-arrow course to a pre-determined outcome, since people in the past had no way of anticipating our present world. Contingency also reminds us that individuals shape the course of human events. What if Karl Marx had decided to elude Prussian censors by emigrating to the United States instead of France, where he met Frederick Engels? To assert that the past is contingent is to impress upon students the notion that the future is up for grabs, and that they bear some responsibility for shaping the course of future history.”

—Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke

“What Does It Mean to Think Historically?” (2007)

R

6

For a more specific example from Theravāda, imagine that Buddhagosa never met or debated Revata and that he instead remained a follower of Patañjali’s Yoga Sutra system rather than becoming a convert to Buddhism, or that he never decided to travel to Sri Lanka to translate the Commentaries (which at that point had been lost in every other Kingdom on the Indian subcontinent), or that the Sinhalese Commentaries were not still extant at the Mahāvihāra in Sri Lanka when he got there, or that he never had the opportunity to write the actual Visuddhimagga - the most important Buddhist exegisis outside of the Tipitika itself in Buddhist history - based on his amazing knowledge of the Commentarial literature. How different do you think Buddhism would be today? What do you think it would look like today?

R

7

Back then, it probably would have looked something like Christianity in the 2nd century:

“As for the Christians, according to Celsus they were split into many warring sects which had little or nothing in common save the name of Christian (1). This is surely an exaggeration; but it is certain that there was as yet no authoritative Christian creed nor any fixed canon of Christian scripture. The Muratorian fragment, commonly dated about 180, excludes the Epistle to the Hebrews and includes the Apocalypse of Peter; some Roman churchmen still rejected St John’s Gospel, and many rejected the Apocalypse of John; Hermas, on the other hand, was thought even by Origen to be divinely inspired, and a great variety of apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Apocalypses circulated among the faithful. Even the text of the Evangelists could still be tampered with: Marcion had rewritten Luke, and Clement of Alexandria knows of a ‘secret’ version of Mark which he considers basically genuine though interpolated by Gnostics for their own wicked purposes (2). Orthodoxy was not yet clearly marked off from heresy: it was easy to slide from one to the other, as Tatian passed from orthodoxy to Valentinianism, and Tertullian to Montanism. If Celsus sometimes confused Christianity with Gnosticism, as Origen alleges, (3) it is probable that his confusion was shared by a good many contemporary Christians.”

—E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 105–106.

And who knows what it would look like today.

R