The Buddha's Perspective on "God"

If there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent 'creator' of all, all of 'his creation' should be similar to 'him'. As this is not so, this 'creator' does not exist.

- Stonepeace


The Buddha argued, 'If Brahma ['creator God', if he exists] is venerable, victorious, invincible and the father of them all from whom we are born; if that Brahma is permanent, constant, imperishable, unalterable and eternal, then why are we, whom Brahma has created, impermanent, alterable, unstable and ephemeral?'

No theist has any convincing reply to that.

The Buddha made another argument.

He said, 'If God is omnipotent and the absolute cause of creation, a man should not have a will to do anything. Nor would he have any resolve to try anything. If it is so, why did God create us at all?'

There is no convincing reply to the Buddha's argument.

The Buddha put up also an ethical argument.

He said, 'If God is propitious and gracious, why do men become killers, thieves, adulterers, liars, backbiters, babblers, greedy, malicious and wicked? Is it possible in the presence of a good, kind and propitious God?'

The Buddha put up another irrefutable argument.

He said, 'If there is a great creator who is also just and kind, why are there so many instances of injustice?'

Lord Buddha said, 'Could he, who has eyes, tolerate such an awful plight? Why does Brahma not ameliorate his creation? If he is almighty and cannot by stopped by anyone, why does he not use his hands to perform propitious deeds? Why is his creation suffering as it is? Why does falsehood prevail over truth? I consider your God unjust, who created this world only to shelter injustice.'

The Buddha said, 'If an almighty God permeates all the creatures and makes them happy or unhappy, and makes them do right or wrong, then such a God is also tainted with sin; and either man is not under God's command or God is not just and good, or God is blind.'…

The Buddha came out with an argument, which proved fatal for theism.

It comes under his theory of Dependent Origination, which argues: 'The prime question is not whether there is a God or not. The prime question is whether God created the world or not."

'The actual question is how the creator created the world. If we could correctly answer how the world was created, we could justify the doctrine of God's existence to some extent…'

'The important question is whether a God created something out of something or out of nothing. It is not possible to believe that something was created out of nothing.'

The Buddha also said, 'If God created something out of something, then that something out of which something new was created has been in existence before he created anything. Therefore, God cannot be called the creator of that something which existed before him.'

The Buddha argued that 'If something has been created by somebody out of something before God created anything, then he cannot be said to be the First Cause of creation.'

It was this last argument of the Buddha, which was absolutely fatal for the belief in God.It was an incontrovertible argument, and still is.

- Extracted from "Why Am I An Atheist? by Dr. Dharmakirti"

Is There A Creator?

Buddhism refutes the possibility of something independent that does not depend on a cause.

Everything is interdependent. No phenomenon arises autonomously, suddenly deciding, so to speak, that it will manifest.

If the primal substance were the cause of everything it gives rise to, then it would have to be produced itself. But as it is not itself created, how can it create anything?

Buddhism teaches that everything arises from causes and conditions and that there is no such thing as an un-caused cause.

If there were such a thing, then everything could be said to arise from nothing! Alternatively, the primal substance would have to be constantly giving rise to (causing) something. But as we can see, phenomena sometimes manifest and at other times do not. This is because the causes and conditions on which they depend sometimes come together and at other times do not.

If the cause were independent and able to create constantly, then of course its results would also have to be constant.

Since the results are not constant, we can argue that their cause also is not constant: it is impermanent. If there is such a thing as an independent creator, which in consequence is alone and all-pervading, all its manifestations or results should be permanent.

Belief in such a creator is simply not logical.

- Extracted from : The Daily Enlightenment