Does God exists? A weekly weird wave to the same question
Take diseases, for instance. A few decades back, cholera, plague, tuberculosis they weren’t medical conditions. They were “acts of God.” Fast-forward to today: antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplants. We literally snatch people back from death. Guess what? God quietly exited the hospital. Because once humans learn to fix something, suddenly the divine started looking suspiciously unemployed to us.
A tiny creature on a tiny planet among various other planets and even among various other universes and galaxies lacks exposure to explain something that doesn't exists near him simple! But does that mean god ain't there? No, I mean who knows right?
Ant on a book can’t grasp the whole story, Fish in water can’t recognize the medium it lives, Humans too may lack the scale to understand God.
When someone says: “If God exists, why suffering?” they assume that suffering automatically cancels God out. But wait suffering doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist, it just shakes up the character sketch we humans wrote for him. Think of it like this: If your math teacher gives you hard questions, does that mean the teacher doesn’t exist? No it might just mean your teacher is cruel… or a genius with a “bigger plan.” If your parents ground you, does that mean they aren’t real? No it means they might not be as “loving” in that moment as you’d like. If your boss makes you work weekends, do you say “Boss doesn’t exist”? Sadly, no. You just start questioning if he’s a saint or a sadist.
So suffering could mean:
God is not sugar-coated love – maybe He’s strict, maybe He’s indifferent, maybe He’s experimenting like a scientist with ants.
It’s part of a bigger plan – but like most government schemes, no one really knows the plan.
It hardly makes sense at all – maybe God is beyond our categories of “good” and “bad,” like physics is beyond our dog’s understanding of why the ball sometimes bounces weird.
At the end of the day, suffering doesn’t disprove God, it just proves humans hate discomfort and want their God to come with a warranty card for happiness.
Light Analogy: God as Sunlight, Humans as ShadowsClaim: All existence depends on God like shadows depend on the sunProblem: This is poetic, not evidential. Shadows are observable phenomena, God is notAnthropomorphic Analogies: God as King/ShepherdClaim: Just as kings rule over kingdoms, God rules over creation.Problem: Human kingship is observable and contingent; applying it to the cosmos is an assumption, not proof.
The atheist position will always be a default position for the existence of God and Holy books are not the proof for existence of god it's the claim!!!!
So you say God knows everything in advance!!
Then why let the script play out at all? Ah, you answer “to give us experience.” But tell me this: if I, as a father, knew my child was about to walk into disaster, would I just sit back, watch from a distance, and then pat myself on the back saying, “Well, at least he learned a lesson”? A lesson? From pain, from tragedy delivered by a God who is supposed to be kind? That feels less like compassion and more like cruelty dressed as pedagogy.
And yet, look at our own human theories survival of the fittest. If nature is allowed to operate through struggle and suffering, why can’t God’s universe run on the same principle: survival through hardship? Perhaps divine lessons are simply another form of evolution.
In the end, no matter which argument wins, every religion does the same vital thing it hands us hope. And sometimes, hope is the only thing that keeps us walking through the storm.
Think of a painting!!!!
Just because you can’t see the painter standing there doesn’t automatically mean no painter ever existed. A canvas full of colors usually implies an artist. But wait what if that painting wasn’t made by a human hand at all? What if it was generated by AI, or created by some natural process, like pigments spilled in a strangely beautiful accident? If all you see is the final artwork, you can’t conclusively declare whether it came from a brush, a computer algorithm, or pure chance. The painting alone is evidence of existence, yes, but not evidence of the source.
It’s like seeing footprints on the sand. Did a human walk there, or was it a cleverly designed beach-cleaning robot? The prints exist, but the maker remains ambiguous.
Or imagine a song playing on the radio. The melody is real, undeniable. But without further context, can you say if it was composed by Mozart, or generated by software, or simply random static that coincidentally aligned into a rhythm? The tune doesn’t reveal its composer by itself.
Same with architecture. If you stumble upon a dome in the desert, it could have been built by ancient humans, aliens (if you’re into conspiracies), or even formed accidentally by erosion and time. The dome proves something stands, but not who or what put it there.
So when people argue, “The universe is here, therefore God must be the painter of this grand canvas,” it’s like pointing at a mural and saying, “It looks painted, so a painter must have been here.” Maybe yes, maybe no. The truth is, the mere presence of the painting (universe) doesn’t settle whether a human painter (God), an AI (natural laws), or a chaotic accident (random chance) created it. Existence alone cannot prove authorship. A painting tells us something made it but not who made it.
If something lies beyond human comprehension, does that mean it doesn’t exist or just that our tools of measurement are too limited?
Take the stars. Astronomers estimate billions upon billions, scattered across galaxies. But can we truly count them? No. Some stars we see are already dead, their light only now reaching us because time bends perception. So when we ask, “How many stars exist?” are we counting the living ones, the dead ones whose light still travels, or the ones not yet born? The very framing of the question gets entangled in relativity and perspective. It’s like trying to count waves in the ocean. By the time you label one, it has already merged into another. Do we then conclude that waves don’t exist or that our concept of “counting” doesn’t apply neatly here? Or like trying to measure infinity with a ruler. The failure is not in infinity’s existence but in the inadequacy of our tools.
So when people ask questions about things that might be beyond comprehension like God, ultimate reality, or even the total number of stars the real issue may not be existence, but whether our questions are framed in a way the universe can answer. Sometimes the question itself is too small for the truth it seeks.
Imagine God just got CTRL+ALT+DELETED from human memory: One fine morning, poof! No God, no Allah, no Bhagwan, no Jesus, no Krishna.
Everyone wakes up like:
“Earthquake? Must be faulty civil engineering!”“Flood? Blame climate change and corrupt contractors.”“Failed exam? Blame Netflix, not destiny.”
Basically, humans would run out of their cosmic scapegoat and start blaming:
Politicians (already a hobby)Parents (classic option)Wi-Fi router (90% of modern frustrations anyway)
Without God, we people would suddenly realize: oh, maybe we are responsible for our own mess. Pain wouldn’t be “God testing us” but rather “humans messing up.”
Why do we always assume God is the good guy?
You stub your toe? Evil God chuckles.Who decided that if there is a God, it must be a sweet old grandpa handing out blessings like ladoos? Why not the opposite? Maybe God is more like that toxic boss throws you into chaos just to watch you squirm.
You finally get rich but then drop your phone in the toilet? “Plot twist,” says Evil God.
Humans prefer a benevolent God narrative because it gives comfort. “He must have a plan” is easier to digest than “He’s just messing with us for entertainment.”
Think of it like video games:
Some people see God as the helpful game designer gave you cheat codes like prayer, faith, and hope.
Others think He’s the mischievous developer dropping glitches, surprise enemies, and sudden “Game Over” just to keep it spicy.
Either way, life goes on. But the fun part is, without God in the picture, we’d finally see who we really blame: ourselves, each other, or maybe just gravity.
Using science to prove or disprove God’s existence is like using a thermometer to measure whether love exists. Science deals with measurable, material realities, whereas God (like love) is invoked in the realm of meaning, experience, and belief.
At present, we don’t even have the best representatives from both sides to conduct a serious debate on God’s existence. For any fair conclusion, tarka (logic) and vitarka (counter-logic) must both be present, and there should be equal representation from both sides.
Today, those who argue that God does not exist have excellent representatives philosophers, scientists, and rationalists. But those who argue that God exists, not just as an idea but as something they have felt, seen, or experienced, often do not have equally strong voices in the debate.
Some may dismiss this by saying: “God cannot be experienced, only understood.” But such arguments hardly hold in real debates. Human life is full of experiences that go beyond pure reasoning.
Thus, analogies or scientific methods cannot conclusively prove or disprove God. At best, they can enrich the discussion. Any honest debate on God must allow both sides reason and experience, skepticism and faith to meet on equal ground.
