Scientific Evidence for the Non-Existence of an Almighty God

General Theravada topics
1

Christians believe in an almighty God named Jehovah.
Muslims believe in an almighty God named Allah.
Hindus believe in an almighty God named Great Brahma.
They believe He created and continues to create the universe and everything in it.
They believe this almighty God is all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, and all-merciful.

However, there is a lot of scientific evidence proving that there is no almighty God.

If there is an almighty God, there cannot be sick believers of that almighty God, namely Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. Because if there is an almighty God, He would never allow His followers to become sick.

If there is an almighty God, there cannot be poor believers of that almighty God, namely Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. Because if there is an almighty God, He would provide them with wealth.

If there is an almighty God, there cannot be homeless believers of that almighty God, namely Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. Because if there is an almighty God, He would provide them with homes.

If there is an almighty God, believers of that almighty God—Christians, Muslims, and Hindus—should be equally rich and have everything they want.

If there is an almighty God, believers of that almighty God—Christians, Muslims, and Hindus—should never face road accidents. But they do face road accidents, which proves that there is no almighty God that controls the universe.

If there is an almighty God, there cannot be violent deaths of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. Because if there is an almighty God, He would take care of His followers.

If there is an almighty God, He does not let His followers suffer even a little.

If there is an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, and all-merciful almighty God, there cannot be various sufferings in the world, such as sicknesses.

Why Praying is Useless?

Praying is useless. If praying were useful, we wouldn’t need hospitals to heal the sick; we could just pray and be healed.

If praying were useful, people would have everything they want.

If praying were useful, when people pray to the almighty God to stop the death of someone, that person should not die and should live forever. But people die despite praying to stay alive.

If praying were useful, there would not be poor Christians, Muslims, and Hindus.

If praying gives someone what they want, it should be given immediately by the almighty God. But no matter how hard people pray, they don’t receive anything.

If God is all-knowing, then praying is useless because the almighty God knows all, and there is no necessity for praying.

If there is an almighty God, any almighty God that allows cruel sufferings in the world is not worth following. This scientific evidence proves that there is no almighty God creator.

The universe was not created by someone. The universe was created by nature itself and operates according to natural laws.

2

None of your examples involve science.

1 Like
3

Déjà vu

1 Like
4

In the Suttas, even Great Brahma falls under Māra’s sway, deluded into thinking he’s the creator (Mahābrahmā Sutta).

I like King Ashoka though who supported the propagation of good in all religions. So I feel if it does not harm another, we should support other relgions to have virtue in action and make that the common thread, that all religions are based on dana/sila/virtue and at least worldly right view.

It is true that we each have to take up the mantle that it is our own efforts that will be the foundation of our future fruits.

The Bodhisatta’s way: In the Jātakas, the future Buddha consistently relies on his own effort, wisdom, and compassion rather than prayer.

Mahājanaka Jātaka (No. 539) – Vīriya Pāramī (Perfection of Energy)

  • Merchants pray to their gods as the ship sinks – they all perish.
  • Prince Mahājanaka trusts his own strength, not divine aid, climbs to the top mast and dives over the sharks.
  • He swims for seven days and seven nights, and the stops to observe the precepts.
  • The sea-goddess Maṇimekhalā, struck by his perseverance and purity, saves him with a golden ship.
  • Lesson: If we really do the work, keep the virtue and practice to our upmost, then even the gods may take notice and help. We should first rely on doing everything we can to solve the problems before us, not rely on others to save us forgetting our on capabilities.

Sankha Jātaka (No. 442) – Karuṇā Pāramī (Perfection of Compassion)

  • The Bodhisatta is born as a wealthy brahmin, named Sankha, who practices generosity.
  • He later renounces, becomes an ascetic, and after a shipwreck lives by the seashore.
  • There he hears (from sages or tradition) that:

“If one develops mettā-bhāvanā (meditation on compassion) for a full rains retreat, Brahmā will appear face to face.”

  • Inspired, he undertakes the practice.
  • He cultivates compassion for all beings for the three months of the vassa.
  • At the fulfilment of his meditation, the earth quakes as his karuṇā-pāramī (of a Buddha-to-be) reaches perfection.

The Cosmic Sign

  • As his karuṇā becomes vast and purified, the seat of Brahmā becomes heated (āsanaṃ uṇhaṃ hoti).

In Jātaka tradition, this “seat burning hot” is the sign that a great deed of merit or pāramī has matured in the human world, requiring Brahmā or Sakka’s attention.

  • Realizing this, Brahmā descends from his world.

Brahmā’s Role

  • Brahmā does not simply appear passively. He rouses and encourages the Bodhisatta:
    • To persist in the holy life.
    • To remain purified and steadfast in ascetic practice.

Brahmā thus urges the Bodhisatta’s power of parmai not helping him make the choice of taking a higher path by answering his questions.

===============================

Final Thoughts

It shows us that we need to be wise, and if we act through self-directed effort then the gods may even help us. We know from the Suttas that Sakka sends his ministers down on the moon nights, so there is certainly an interaction between devas and humans.

I think respect of others religion is important in all those aspects that support in moral right view. And mutual non violence and respect.

This maybe then agrees with the idea that prayer is not something on its own, but I think it allows a deep discussion into the role of self directed effort.

===============================

Relevant Quotes & Passages from Aśoka - Universal Ethics

  1. Rock Edict XII – Religious Tolerance & Respect

    • “The faiths of others all deserve to be honoured for one reason or another. By honouring them one exalts one’s own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others … If a man extols his own faith and disparages another because of devotion to his own … he seriously injures his own faith.”

    • This supports the idea that Aśoka believed people should treat other religions that have virtue with respect, as this respects one’s own moral integrity.

  2. Edict 12 – Gifts & Honours to All Religions

    • “Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds.”

    • This shows Aśoka granting generosity (dāna) across religious sects.

  3. Edict on Moral Behavior & Dhamma as Universal Ethics

    • In general, many of Aśoka’s edicts stress moral virtues (Pāli/Sanskrit: sīla, “good conduct”), compassion, kindness to all living beings, non-violence, purity of mind.
2 Likes
5

The more pressing question is does good and evil exist? If God created the world then he created evil as well as good. He created sin. Bit of an issue. He created Non Believer’s a big problem. But does good and evil exist?

1 Like
6

Yes of course, it is fundamental to Buddhism and all religions. Beings would not be able to have better rebirth, or realise Nibbana if there was no goodness.

I couldn’t find a sutta strong enough, but there is the concept that a god could not create the universe as it would have to of created evil, and in this argument alone, the idea of samara make much more sense.

I did though find a quote from Ānanda Metteyya (a early Theravadha Buddhist Monk Missionary). I thought he a good choice on the topic as he has suffered a lot due to illness his whole life, so why not evil, he certainly understood suffering.

“He sees each living creature fighting for its life, Self against the Universe…. He sees at last how all this life is a cheat, a snare,—so long as you look at it from this standpoint of the individual. If he had had faith in God — in some great Being who had devised the Universe, he can no longer hold it; for any being, now he clearly sees, who could have devised a Universe wherein was all this wanton war, this piteous mass of pain coterminous with life, must have been a Demon, not a God.” (source)

“Consider, for example, the case of the ‘killer-whale,—the smallest animal of its family; and the fashion wherein it treats the vastly larger member of its own family,—the huge sperm-whale. Attacking it with continuous blows of its tail; again and again the killer tries to dislocate the sperm-whale’s lower jaw; so that it no more can close its mouth. Then, pulling with all its might, the killer succeeds in dislocating the sperm-whale’s lower jaw; so that it no more can close its mouth. Then the killer reaps the reward of its long combat; entering the huge animal’s mouth it eats out its tongue,—and departs to leave the hapless monster to die in a slow torment of agony and starvation!” (AM, The Wisdom of the Aryas)

So why there not be a creator god. I still of course believe that evil and good do exist. We have to attach to goodness, the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha all the way until Nibbana. It is our life force (we rely on it) and our vehicle.

“Do not disregard evil, saying, ‘It will not come nigh unto me’; by the falling of drops even a water-jar is filled; likewise the fool, gathering little by little, fills himself with evil.”
— Buddha (translated by Narada Thera), Dhammapada 121

“Do not disregard merit, saying ‘It will not come nigh unto me’; by the falling of drops even a water-jar is filled; likewise the wise man, gathering little by little, fills himself with good.”
— Buddha (translated by Narada Thera), Dhammapada 122

“Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.”
— Buddha (translated by Narada Thera), Dhammapada 103

“Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.”
— Buddha (translated by Maurice Walshe), Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN 16)

Saṃyutta Nikāya 45.149

“Monks, just as whatever punishment-deeds are done, all those are done relying on the earth, established upon the earth, so too, monks, relying on virtue, established upon virtue, a monk develops and cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path. Therein, he is of great fruit, of great benefit, in wholesome states.”

Aṅguttara Nikāya 11.1

“Virtues, Ānanda, skillful ones, have freedom from remorse as their purpose, and freedom from remorse as their fruit. … Dispassion has knowledge-and-vision of liberation as its purpose, and knowledge-and-vision of liberation as its fruit. Thus, Ānanda, I have declared the path.”

1 Like
7

The arguments in this thread are more philosophical than scientific, but it is possible to discuss the problem of the existence of an Almighty God within Theravāda Buddhism.

  1. What’s the First Cause of the Universe (or Samsāra)?

This is one of the questions the Buddha refused to answer, because addressing it was not conducive to liberation (AN 4.47). In SN15.3 the Buddha states that the beginning of Samsāra cannot be found. There is nothing in the texts to support the idea of an Almighty God as the First Cause.

  1. Does God (or gods) act in the benefit of human beings?

It’s possible that, in some cases, gods (devas or brāhmas) intervene in human affairs. However, such interventions are rare and unreliable. Most of the time, human beings are dependent on their own efforts, the help of other human beings, and their past kamma.

In the Thief of Scent—Gandhatthena Sutta (SN9.14), a monk lowered his sense-restraint and was admonished by a deva. Afterward, the monk asked the deva to help him in case of another mistake, but the deva rebuked him:

“I’m no dependent of yours, nor am I your servant. You yourself should know, mendicant, the way that leads to a good place.”

  1. Did the Buddha talk about the belief in a Creator God?

There are a few suttas worth mentioning:

  • DN1 states that such a belief is a false view that arises at the beginning of a world-system. When beings begin to arise in a new world-system, the first-born being (Māhabrāhma) is often regarded as the Creator of that world-system and its inhabitants.
  • In MN 49, the Buddha debates with Bāka Brāhma, a divine being who believes he himself is the Creator God.
  • AN 3.61 states that the belief that “everything this individual experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is due to the creation of God Almighty” leads to “inaction.” This belief denies the value of personal efforts in attaining spiritual realization.
  • In MN101 , the Buddha says that he deserves praise whether or not his blissful state is the result of a Creator God. This perspective reflects a kind of apatheistic view—one that is indifferent to the existence of a Creator God.
3 Likes
8

Same can be said about many things that Buddha has taught and about Buddha himself. There is no scientific proof of many things found in the Dhamma. This doesn’t mean that we should reject it just because of lack of scientific proof.

9

These can be answered by a theistic thinker without much problem. Here is possible way they would answer:

G-d didn’t create “sin”. It was our free will to sin or not. That sin caused the world to devolve into the current painful existence we find ourself in. Non believers don’t believe due to their own free choice.

10

In my opinion, explanations based on free-will are very problematic. It’s a complex topic for the average theist.

11

Please explain the problem, maybe it is not as big as you think.

12

There is no intellectual or epistemic objection to any Buddhist doctrine, unlike certain beliefs of other denominations that may contradict themselves. This marks a profound distinction between truth and falsehood and should never be equated with their baseless views.

To assert that a (God) did not create sin but only granted humans the freedom to commit it is a statement that collapses upon examination. [1] If the human will exists, it must either be uncreated and independent, or created and contingent. [2] If it is uncreated, then it exists outside divine causation, which nullifies divine omnipotence. [3] If it is created, then every property of that will—its tendencies, its possibilities, and its outcomes—is contained within the act of its creation. In that case, the origin of sin is not the creature’s rebellion but the creator’s design. [4] To claim that suffering entered the world by human misuse of freedom presupposes that a perfect creator produced an imperfect being, which is itself a contradiction, for perfection cannot yield defect unless by intention. [5] Furthermore, to say that disbelief arises from free choice is incoherent under divine omniscience: for what is perfectly foreknown cannot be otherwise, and what cannot be otherwise is not free. [6] Therefore, the doctrines that aim to defend divine justice end by negating it, for an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot escape responsibility for the totality of what exists.

1 Like
13

I can think of plenty.

  1. How to explain the infinitude of existence in samsara. If there is no starting point of one wandering in samsara, how could there ever be an end point?

  2. Existence of rebirth. There is no proof of that, and it goes against Ockham’s razor to postulate countless lives vs just this life.

  3. Location of the mind in… the heart?!!:rofl: To be fair, it is the entire body (with its hormones, brain, and yes the heart), the environment and other people around that cause some conscious states.

  4. All the difficulties with hard “no self teachings”. The Indians had a lot to say about this.

If there is no self, then what suffers? What accumulates “paramis”? Etc.

14

Human will is not created by G-d and neither is it uncreated. By creating a person, that person can potentially choose will to do X or Y. Willfully believe or willfully disbelieve. G-d’s creation itself did NOT cause X or Y choice. Choosing X or Y is freely willed by the person.

Thinking about this, maybe the same can be said and asked about Buddha’s omniscience. If he can know absolutely everything about the future, then doesn’t that preclude our choice, volition, exertion? This sort of fatalism sounds like Ajivika teaching.

G-d might logically foreknow the outcome of a person doing this or that alternative, but the actual action is initiated first by the person who doesn’t know the outcome in advance and who could have chosen the alternative but did not.

Perhaps “perfection” itself is an outcome of oneself, rather than someone else choosing appropriate choice despite all the difficulties and troubles. Theists might also say something that if G-d made us without choice, we would be mindless robots without one’s own perfection.

As for “If G-d is all powerful, can He make a rock that He cannot lift” type of argument: The problem is with misunderstanding what omnipotence is and isn’t. Omnipotence doesn’t mean breaking the laws of logic or creating impossible scenarios. A rock can be lifted, there is no such thing as unliftable rock. There is no such thing as married bachelor or triangle with four angles.

He isn’t responsible for your choices. You are.

Theism isn’t my belief, and I am sure that they can come up with better solutions than above.

15

Your claim that human will is “neither [created] nor [uncreated]” is inherently self-contradictory. Nothing that exists escapes one of these two categories: everything other than God is either [created] or [co-eternal with Him]. How, then, can the will emanate from a human being, while the human itself is a [created] entity? Do you suggest that a [created] being brings forth something [uncreated]? This overturns the natural order and confuses cause and effect.

You further assert that God created humans so that they “can [will],” yet willing itself is a property of action. It must therefore be either [created by God] within the human or [independent of Him]. If you claim it is [created by God], your argument for the independence of human will collapses. If you claim it is inherent in the human and [uncreated], you attribute to the human an [eternal power] independent of God’s creative act, thereby sharing with God the very meaning of [creation] and [existence].

Moreover, your statement that “God’s creation of humans does not necessitate choice X or Y” is untenable. Every potential action requires a determining factor; without it, all possibilities remain equal, and none would occur. This guiding factor must come either from within the human—in which case it is [created]—or from outside—in which case it ultimately derives from God’s [decree]. Consequently, there is no place for the notion of “[absolute free choice].” In fact, no monotheistic religion, nor any theistic tradition, affirms such a concept (the most common tendency is to conflate determinism with free agency).

Human actions cannot escape one of two alternatives: they either occur without a cause or by a cause. If they occur without a cause, causality itself is denied, and all reasoning that leads to the affirmation of [God as the First Cause] collapses. But if they occur by a cause, that cause must be either external to the agent or intrinsic to it. If external, compulsion is established; if intrinsic, the chain of causation must either regress infinitely—which is impossible—or terminate in something beyond the agent, and compulsion follows once again. Moreover, [non-action is sheer negation], and negation cannot be the object of power, for power pertains only to the existent possible. Likewise, an act, once in existence, cannot depend upon another power, for that would entail the absurdity of causing what is already caused. Thus, the agent who has power over an act has no power over its omission; power, therefore, is [determinative, not elective]—and that is the essence of determinism.

Furthermore, the notion that power arises in a state of equilibrium between motives for action and inaction is incoherent, for preference cannot emerge without a preferring cause. And if power arises when one side already outweighs the other, the dominant is necessary and the subordinate impossible, and neither the necessary nor the impossible can be objects of power. Hence, every act unfolds by the necessity of the cause that determines it, not by any free choice of the agent. Freedom of will, therefore, is nullified in the light of [an all-knowing Deity], for it is inconceivable that God should have perfect foreknowledge of what shall be, while the possible might occur otherwise than He knows.

The only possible avenues to contest this and preserve human free will are confined to three approaches: (1) The first is denying exhaustive foreknowledge, asserting that God knows the possibilities of actions without apprehending their detailed particulars prior to their occurrence; this safeguards human freedom but undermines the absolute perfection of His knowledge. (2) The second is maintaining that God knows the general order of things rather than individual events, so that He remains aware of the cosmic laws and causal structure without knowledge of each specific act. (3) The third is rendering His knowledge consequent rather than antecedent, meaning that God knows things because they occur, not that they occur because He knows them [and this has many problematic aspects]; this reverses the causal relation between knowledge and action and diminishes His complete comprehension.

Taking any of these approaches comes at the cost of compromising divine omniscience within all monotheistic frameworks, which in these systems constitutes heresy (or outright disbelief) in the full sense.

This is another issue, not fundamentally related to what is being discussed here, though it is as fallacious as the previous one.

Most of them are limited to the three I mentioned, and attempts at reconciliation were already proposed in earlier times, and yes, as I said, they undermine the traditional concept.

I have no need to say anything here in the first place, since the representational comparison is not even appropriate. This is an example of a false analogy: that which is specific to God is necessarily a condition for creation.

16

This is a confusion between a hypothetical temporal origin and an actual causal condition, and it misclassifies samsara as an eternal essence rather than a conditioned process; “no beginning” is not a metaphysical assertion but an epistemic observation, indicating that no first point in the chain of arising can be found. There is no need for a starting point, and applying this understanding establishes that the absence of a beginning does not preclude the possibility of an end. The principle “no beginning, no end” holds only for an eternal essence, whereas samsara, being conditioned, can cease through the cessation of its causes. Thus, the question, “How can samsara end if it has no beginning?” is fundamentally flawed, for a causal end is possible and independent of any hypothetical first point. Consequently, all that is required to dissolve the cycle of suffering is not a beginning, but the actual cessation of the [present causes] relative to us [here]; samsara continues for the living, but for those who existed in [the past] and attained liberation, it has already ceased. A theoretical analogy may be drawn: a room shrouded in darkness for an unknown duration—when a lamp is lit, the darkness ends.

I do not agree with your assertion — if you are speaking in a narrow sense, then it is so for you.

It is sheer intellectual folly and absurdity to assert this in the first place.

  • Occam’s razor is frequently misunderstood and misapplied by the lay public. Its true purpose is not to provide conclusive proof or definitive resolution to a problem, but rather to offer a methodological guide when facing two equally predictive hypotheses, favoring the explanation that relies on the fewest assumptions; it serves as a starting point for inquiry, not as a means of final judgment.

  • It is an instrument that leaves the final decision to intuition; yet intuitive judgments are, by their very nature, subjective, non-objective, unstable, and incomplete—they do not constitute a reliable standard of judgment.

  • It utterly fails to define or determine what counts as “simpler,” rendering the entire notion wholly ambiguous, while erroneously imposing the scarcity of assumptions as a condition of validity—an approach that is logically untenable.

Complications arise from language and translations; aside from the initial ambiguity, no issue remains.

17

This post by Baloo illustrates why explanations based on free will are problematic.

First, such explanations need to clarify exactly what free will is. I do not define it as unconditioned will (or volition) but rather as will conditioned by specific factors inherent to the individual. These factors include mental contents and the current state of mind shaped by previous volitions. The state of mind determines whether the mind reacts to those contents with greed or non-greed, hatred or non-hatred, and delusion or non-delusion.

If the mental state of a being results from the intervention of another being without the consent of the acting being, then the actions associated with that mental state are the responsibility of the latter. A mundane example would be a person who consumes a substance secretly placed in their drink or food, and as a result begins to behave improperly. If that person knowingly consumed the substance, it is possible to hold them responsible to some degree for the acts performed while intoxicated. But if the consumption was inadvertent, caused by another person without prior consent, then the second person bears a significant part of the responsibility.

In the case of a theological justification for evil, one may ask: can God induce the minds of beings to be free from delusion without obstacles? If so, why does he not do so? Either he is unable to do it (and therefore not omnipotent), or he is able but chooses not to (and therefore is not totally benevolent).

The Buddha spoke about the limits of his knowledge. On the other hand, it is generally the theists who claim omniscience for God in an ultimate sense.

18

We experience this life, we do not experience life before or after. Rebirth (I believe in it, just argue for arguments sake) is much more problematic. There is no proof of anything surviving the death of the body. Newborn baby isn’t born with knowledge, language, skills, personality of the person who has died.

It utterly fails to define or determine what counts as “simpler,”

1 life is simpler than “100”. When it comes to Buddhism, if we had infinite amount of past lives, then the current life would be infinity into the future from the infinite past

Native Hindu speaking their own language argued over this until eventually Buddhism was defeated in India and Hindu Atman beliefs prevailed. There are logical problems with no-self teaching.

19

Above doesn’t make sense. G-d doesn’t create your will, you do.

False dichotomy. Volition is made by the person.

Do you suggest that a [created] being brings forth something [uncreated]?

Uncreated by G-d, but created by the person who chooses this vs that action.

Person is the determining factor. Responsibility is with oneself for one’s own choices.

Human actions cannot escape one of two alternatives: they either occur without a cause or by a cause. If they occur without a cause, causality itself is denied, and all reasoning that leads to the affirmation of [God as the First Cause] collapses. But if they occur by a cause, that cause must be either external to the agent or intrinsic to it. If external, compulsion is established; if intrinsic, the chain of causation must either regress infinitely

For example: Choose to wiggle any finger right now. Was the choice and action predetermined through Big Bang? Do the same experiment with any other action at any other time. Still your action is chosen and done by YOU in that moment.

I don’t want to argue too much as, like I’ve said, I am not a Theist.

20

The Buddha said the first beginning of Samsāra is not discernible. It’s neither affirming not denying infinity of the past, a clever move that avoids the problem of infinite regression. What matter to the discussion is that volitions have internal and external causes. If all volitions were caused solely by external conditions, it would make no sense to speak of self-determined action. On the other hand, if they were caused solely by internal conditions, genuine change would be impossible — the mind would remain confined to its own conditioning, with no room for new causes or insight to arise.

A god with total knowledge of the future and total power would be able to set the universe in a very specific way and foresee all possible outcomes derived from causality. Among those outcomes would be the volitions and volitional actions of sentient beings. These beings, however, would still be subject to the illusion of being the makers of their own volitions — even if God were their true origin.

From a theological perspective, free will would only be possible if God were not omniscient or not omnipotent — because the coexistence of both qualities logically excludes true autonomy of will.

From a Buddhist perspective, this shows how the belief in God as the primary cause of actions and results can be detrimental to spiritual practice, as it undermines the teachings on kamma and the individual’s responsibility for their own spiritual development.