Does God Exist?

Introduction

Many of us are familiar with Nietzsche’s famous words “God is dead, and we have killed him”, meaning that following the European period known as the Enlightenment, rational and scientific thinking had essentially uprooted the need to believe in the words brought by the Prophets. However, he and the Europeans were quite late to the party. If we go back more than two and a half millennia we will find that a different type of Enlightenment also had the effect of killing the notion of God.

The person responsible, Siddhartha, grew up in an India where people were starting to question the scriptural authority that had been around for centuries or millennia prior. Although these scriptures did not include mention of a Creator God as defined by the later Middle-Eastern Prophets, some Vedic and Brahmanical circles did consider it. And so, in the moments prior to Siddhartha reaching Complete Enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree, he realised something profound, after which he spoke the following:

Through countless births in the cycle of existence. I have run, in vain seeking the builder of this house; and again and again I faced the discomfort of new birth. Oh housebuilder! Now you are seen. You shall not build a house again for me.

In other words, Siddhartha, had realised that searching for his creator outwardly led him down a cycle of rebirth, essentially leading him in circles. It was only after realising the true nature of reality that he ended his search. With these words Siddhartha essentially destroyed the notion of an extrinsic creator of reality, which led him to Complete Enlightenment moments later, becoming Buddha. And as opposed to Nietzsche’s attempt to lay a foundation of morality and wisdom which is nowadays merely a topic for academics and witty pub-goers (speaking for my younger self here), Buddha’s path of morality and wisdom thrived and is still followed, studied and practised to this day.

While Buddha lived a calm and clear life after his discovery, Nietzsche seemed concerned: Creator God had been the very foundation on which people’s morality and values were based. Removing it would be like pulling out the very base of a house, it would crumble. Therefore, Nietzsche set out to suggest a new system using his ideas, as opposed to Buddha, whose teachings are merely a means for us to realise what he realised, rather than to establish a system or doctrine, which is why it is often said that Buddhism is not a religion.

According to Buddha, the foundation of morality and wisdom is already present in the very nature of the mind, so there is no need to establish a new one. All one has to do is peel off the layers, including the one that believes in an extrinsic creator, until we realise the nature of existence directly. Until then, we can refute the concept of Creator God through Middle Way reasoning.

What is True and What is Not

First of all, let us accept that to establish something as truth it must be cognised by our mind directly or via inference, and this cognition must be free of deception. Or we could trust a third party to have cognised it directly or by inference without deception. To illustrate this: if we see fire, we can establish the existence of the fire - this is direct cognition. Otherwise, if we see smoke behind a wall, we can establish the existence of fire, because smoke can only be caused by something burning.

If someone tells us that there is fire and we see no smoke and no fire we can either argue against the existence of fire through reasoning or trust the person as a valid cogniser. This adds an extra layer of complexity, because this person might not be trying to deceive us but rather has impaired cognition: they could have hallucinated the fire or the smoke. In fact, it is very common for parents to establish something non-existent as existing in order to benefit their children. As children, given the kindness of the parents and our innocence we will accept them as valid cognizers and therefore accept their claims.

This follows suit with those human beings that introduced the idea of Creator God that is most widely accepted in the world today: the Prophets. In order for someone to accept the idea of Creator God, one first needs to accept the Prophets as valid cognizers. Those who follow modern scientific views often claim that the physical world is the only thing that exists and that nothing supernatural exists. Even so, they will accept the existence of subatomic particles without having seen them. This is because they accept physicists and those who communicate the results of scientific research as valid cognizers. They trust scientists and therefore trust what they say and the proof they show, just like those who believe in a Creator God trust the Prophets. How then can we verify whether the Prophets are valid cognizers? By analysing their words, definitions and reasonings through the prasangika methodology.

What is God

Although the Prophets are not the only ones to have introduced the idea of a single Creator God, theirs is the most widespread and clearly defined today. Other mentions include Zoroastrianism, which believes in Ahura Mazda as the supreme creator God who is associated with truth, order, and goodness; Post-Vedic Hinduism, which believes in a supreme creator deity, sometimes being Brahman and other times being Ishvara (although this varies according to time, region and tradition); Sikhism, which believes in a single, formless God referred to as Ik Onkar who is the creator of the universe, often described as timeless, beyond birth and death; and other indigenous beliefs.

Without a clear definition it is impossible to analyse a concept. And a definition must be free of the three kinds of faults: being too all encompassing, not all-encompassing enough, and not possible. So by sourcing the three most well-known scriptural authorities in Abrahamic Religions the definition comes down to:

A singular, pure, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all compassionate deity beyond human comprehension who is the permanent extrinsic cause of existence i.e. the universe and everything within it as well as the moral principles.

It is worth mentioning that Post-Vedic Hindu traditions such as the Nyaya school add more characteristics to Creator God such as: giver of gifts, ability and meaning to humanity and the unseen power that makes karma work. In short, however, we can define Creator God as the extrinsic cause of all of existence, making it the main point to refute. The rest of the definition highlights the primary and secondary characteristics. Once the primary characteristics that hold a concept together fall apart the secondary characteristics will follow suit.

Refuting an Extrinsic Cause of Existence

Now, if Creator God created all things, we can see that trees, valleys, clouds and so forth were created by the coming together of the elements and natural forces, not by an external cause. If one wishes to refer to those elements as God, then anyone can just name things as they wish - there is no point in trying to prove the existence of God here. In fact, the elements are many and constantly changing, so this contradicts the permanent, eternal, singular and divine qualities of God. Moreover, the elements are not pure: one steps over them and defecates into them. Likewise one cannot say that God is space itself, because space is inert and lacks the necessary qualities to be a cause for the creation of all things.

So in what way does God create things? Proponents of Creator God would argue that He is inconceivable to human beings. Then if God is inconceivable, his quality to create is also inconceivable. If it is inconceivable, how can we conceptualise the statement “He creates”? When a statement is made, it should be supported with knowledge and reasoning. If we know absolutely nothing about something, how can it be said that He is the creator?

If God is beyond concepts it is pointless to talk about God as a creator, or even as a being, because doing so would contradict His inconceivability, given that words and labels are concepts. Therefore there is no point in giving qualities and characteristics to something that is unquantifiable and non characterisable.

Moreover, if Creator God - the cause of existence - is unknown, how can it be said that he wishes to create? It is necessary to understand both the cause and the effect in order to establish a causal relationship between them. Otherwise, even the child of a sterile woman could be the Creator.

Now, what is the role of this Creator? Did he create the self or the transitory mental factors and thoughts? Proponents of Creator God will also accept that the self or soul is permanent, because it lives on after death, and has no end. The definition of permanent is that which does not change, and therefore, has no beginning or end - which is also a defining quality of Creator God. If something has a beginning it becomes a changing thing, because it changed from being non-existent to being existing. The act of creation itself is a form of change, as it involves bringing something into existence. If something has a beginning it will have an end, otherwise everything and everyone who has ever existed would remain static and new phenomena would never arise given that the beginning of a phenomenon comes from the ending of another.

However, for the sake of this argument let’s accept that the self and the creator are both permanent. How is it possible for something permanent, with no beginning, to create something else that is permanent? If the cause has no beginning, then it is not possible to say that the effect happened at a defined time and not before that. And given that the effect itself is also permanent, it would mean that it lacks beginning and therefore could not have been created by any cause at any time, since it always existed.

Likewise, if God is without beginning and created everything, how is it possible for the creations to have a beginning? Again, it is not possible to say that the effect happened at a defined time and not before that. The creations would have to have existed since forever.

To this, proponents of Creator God would argue that God created the universe and all beings in different steps, and he would have created different things at different times. However, given that it is all His creation, why is he not constantly creating? If He is the only cause for things to be created, then the cause of creation would always be present. Therefore, everything would be created simultaneously at once.

One could argue that God needs other circumstances to create. If this were the case, why aren’t these circumstances present all the time? If there is nothing that God hasn’t created, it is not possible to say that what God creates depends on external circumstances, as this would contradict his omnipotence.

If creation truly depends on these external conditions, then the cause of creation is the coming together of causes and conditions, not God. Because this would mean that when causes and conditions are present, God has no other option than to produce the effects. And when these are not present, God cannot create.

Moreover, if God depends on the coming together of causes and conditions, He is forced against His will to produce suffering in all sentient beings. Thus, He is obeying an external force. Even if He created according to His desires, He would again be under the influence of His own desires, and as we know, desire is a mundane emotion that arises when a mind is attached to the fleeting and impermanent aspects of existence. This would then refute God’s omnipotence and the qualities of transcendence and sovereignty traditionally ascribed to a Creator God.

Refuting the Remaining Qualities

Advocates of a Creator God often put forth the notion that the entirety of existence serves as a test, determining the fates of individuals for eternity — sending them to either heaven or hell based on their actions. However, this perspective opens the door to challenge the idea of an all-compassionate and all-knowing God.

Consider the assertion that our existence is akin to a simulation or an elaborate mirage designed to evaluate humanity. If this were the case, it would conflict with the very notion of omniscience attributed to such a God. An omniscient being would already possess knowledge of the outcome, rendering the test itself a redundant exercise, akin to a preordained theatrical performance where the ending is predetermined.

Furthermore, if this Creator God is responsible for every detail of existence — including the human mind, emotions, and moral framework — then the suffering or well-being of individuals lies under His direct control.

Let us accept that compassion is defined as the deep desire for others to be free from suffering and its causes. Likewise, mercy involves displaying compassion and forgiveness toward those one has the power to harm or punish. In light of this, subjecting beings to suffering, whether temporary or eternal, while possessing the authority to prevent it, contradicts the very idea of limitless compassion and benevolence.

An argument might be put forth that suffering is a necessary element in order to effectively test and evaluate human beings. However, let us imagine an omniscient genetic engineer who designs and creates a dog and constructs an intricate obstacle course to test the dog’s moral compass. If the dog were to fail, this engineer then proceeds to subject the dog to intense suffering — perhaps even immersing it in boiling oil, ensuring that the dog remains alive to experience the torment. Such an action, even for a day, would be widely viewed as devoid of compassion. What need is there to mention if the engineer subjected the dog to such suffering for an eternity?

Faced with these contradictions, proponents of Creator God typically offer several defenses, each of which contains further logical inconsistencies.

The Free Will Defense

The most common defense invokes free will, arguing that God grants humans autonomy to make moral choices, necessitating the possibility of both good and evil. However, this defense contains several contradictions when examined carefully.

First, if Creator God designed the human mind with its capacities, limitations, and tendencies, then He predetermined the parameters within which “free choices” could occur. This is akin to a programmer creating a complex algorithm and then holding the algorithm responsible for its outputs. The programmer who designed all the variables cannot logically blame the program for executing as designed.

Second, much suffering is unrelated to human choices. Natural disasters, congenital diseases, and the suffering of animals in nature have no meaningful connection to moral decision-making. Why would an all-compassionate deity design a world where earthquakes crush innocent children regardless of their moral choices?

Third, the free will defense creates a hierarchy of values where human autonomy apparently supersedes compassion. This suggests that Creator God values the abstract principle of choice more than the concrete suffering of beings—a position that contradicts the quality of all-compassionate.

The Problem of Justice and Proportionality

Another common defense claims that suffering serves divine justice—punishment for wrongdoing and moral correction. However, this argument fails to address the obvious disproportionality we observe.

In human justice systems, we consider torture and indefinite punishment to be cruel and unusual. Even the most heinous criminals receive defined sentences or capital punishment that ends their suffering. Yet the concept of eternal hell proposes infinite punishment for finite crimes—an obvious violation of proportionality.

Moreover, if Creator God established the very moral framework and human psychology that makes wrongdoing possible, holding humans ultimately responsible reflects a circular logic. It would be like a teacher designing an impossible test, knowing students will fail, and then punishing them severely for their failure.

If proponents argue that God’s justice transcends human understanding, we return to the problem of defining God at all. If divine justice is fundamentally incomprehensible to humans, on what basis can anyone claim to know God’s will or moral requirements in the first place? This defense undermines the very religious doctrines it attempts to protect.

Reality Beyond Concepts

Hence, through the Middle Way approach we have now demonstrated that the very concept of Creator God cannot withstand logical analysis. Thus, we have now refuted it through examining the contradictions inherent in its definition and in each attribute. However, this does not mean we should rush to establish an alternative explanation for existence. The Middle Way approach is not to replace one conceptual framework with another, but rather to liberate the mind from all conceptual fabrications.

What did Siddhartha mean when he said “Oh housebuilder! Now you are seen”? He was recognizing the tendency of the mind to construct reality through conceptual proliferation. The “housebuilder” represents not an external creator, but the mind’s habitual process of reification—taking impermanent, dependently arisen phenomena and solidifying them into seemingly independent, inherently existing entities.

Modern scientific understanding has increasingly shown that what we consider “objective reality” dissolves under analysis. At the quantum level, particles exist in states of probability until measured. At the macroscopic level, our perception is not a direct apprehension of objects but a construction based on neural signals. Even the concept of a “pen” breaks down when we analyze its components—it is neither one thing nor many things, neither existent nor completely non-existent.

However, we must be careful not to conclude that “mind creates reality” or that “reality is purely subjective,” as these are simply different conceptual positions that would equally fall apart under analysis. The mind itself, when examined, cannot be found as an inherently existing entity either. Where is this mind? Is it in the brain? Is it the brain? Is it the thoughts? None of these withstand ultimate analysis.

The Middle Way view does not propose any thesis about the ultimate nature of reality. It does not say that things exist inherently, nor that they do not exist at all. It does not claim that reality is objective, nor that it is purely subjective. It does not assert that phenomena are one, nor that they are many. All such positions represent extremes that the Middle Way seeks to avoid.

What remains when conceptual elaboration ceases is not another concept to grasp, but the pacification of all grasping itself. This is what Siddhartha discovered under the Bodhi Tree—not an alternative explanation for existence, but liberation from the need to explain existence within conceptual frameworks that inevitably lead to contradiction.

In this way, the refutation of Creator God is not merely replacing one view with another, but an invitation to recognize the limitations of all views. The Ultimate Truth transcends both existence and non-existence, both eternalism and nihilism, both objectivity and subjectivity. It cannot be captured in words or concepts but can be realized through direct insight when we cease imposing conceptual fabrications upon reality.