Does God Exist? Delhi Debate Revealed More Than Faith
In an age that increasingly equates truth with what can be measured, belief in God is often dismissed as emotional tradition rather than serious reasoning. Yet the question “Does God exist?” is not merely a religious curiosity — it is an intellectual challenge at the foundation of reality itself. Modern skepticism frequently demands scientific evidence for God as if God were a physical object sitting somewhere in the universe. But God, as understood in classical philosophy and major monotheistic traditions, is not a “thing inside the universe.” God is presented as the explanation for why the universe exists at all. When examined carefully, belief in God remains one of the most coherent and rational conclusions human beings can reach, not despite reason, but because of it.
The most direct rational argument for God begins with a simple observation: everything around us is dependent. A book depends on paper, paper depends on trees, trees depend on sunlight, and sunlight depends on the structure of a solar system governed by cosmic laws. Even our own bodies depend on oxygen, biology, time, and countless causes beyond our control. This dependence is not limited to small things — the entire universe is a dependent system. The universe is not self-sustaining by logical necessity; it could have not existed. That makes it contingent. And if the universe is contingent, it cannot be the final explanation of itself. A dependent reality cannot be its own foundation. Thus reason demands a deeper source: something that does not depend on anything else, something whose existence is not borrowed, and whose reality is necessary. Philosophers call this the Necessary Being. Religions call it God.
Some critics respond by saying, “But why can’t the universe be eternal?” Even if the universe were eternal, it would still be contingent in the sense that it has no internal explanation for why it exists rather than not. Eternity does not equal necessity. An infinite chain of dependent causes does not remove dependence — it merely extends it. Imagine a chain of hanging hooks: no matter how long the chain is, it still needs something at the top that holds it. The logic remains the same: if every part depends on something else, the system as a whole requires a foundation. And that foundation must be independent. This is not an appeal to religion; it is a demand of reasoning itself.
Another popular objection is, “If everything needs a cause, who caused God?” But this misunderstands the argument. The claim is not “everything needs a cause.” The claim is “everything contingent needs a cause.” God is defined as necessary — uncaused, unborrowed existence. Asking “who made God?” is like asking “what is north of the North Pole?” The question fails because it applies a rule to a reality that is defined precisely as not subject to that rule. To insist that God must have a creator is to misunderstand what God means in philosophical terms.
Beyond existence, the universe also contains order. We inhabit a reality governed by mathematical laws so precise that the human mind can decode them. The universe is not chaos; it is structured. It operates on principles that allow life to emerge, consciousness to evolve, and moral awareness to develop. While science can describe how these laws function, it cannot explain why such laws exist at all, or why they are intelligible. Order is not proof of God in a simplistic “gap” argument, but it is a powerful clue: coherent systems tend to reflect intelligence, not accident. A poem suggests a poet, code suggests a programmer, and meaningful structure suggests mind. It is not irrational to see a rational source behind rational reality.
The question of morality further strengthens the case. Human beings do not merely prefer kindness — they experience it as a duty. We do not say that murder is simply “unpopular” or “unhelpful.” We call it wrong. Even when moral action costs us, we still recognize moral truth as binding. Yet if reality is purely material and accidental, then morality becomes only biology and social convenience — not truth. In that worldview, there is no objective difference between cruelty and compassion; there is only preference. And yet every human society, even those that deny God, still speaks the language of moral obligation. The best explanation is that morality points beyond matter — toward a moral foundation. God provides that foundation.
Of course, critics argue that suffering disproves God. This is emotionally understandable because suffering is real, painful, and sometimes unbearable. Yet the existence of suffering does not logically eliminate God; it challenges only a particular simplistic picture of God. In fact, the very argument from suffering depends on the existence of objective moral values — because to call suffering “evil” assumes a real standard of good. If the universe is only atoms and chance, then suffering is merely unpleasant, not morally wrong. But when human beings protest suffering as unjust, they are implicitly appealing to moral truth. That moral truth fits more naturally in a reality grounded in moral meaning than in a reality grounded in randomness.
Moreover, the presence of hardship is not incompatible with purpose. In every meaningful human endeavor — education, discipline, responsibility, growth — difficulty is a condition of development. A world without any pain or risk would also be a world without courage, sacrifice, patience, empathy, and moral struggle. It may be tempting to imagine a world with comfort only, but such a world would lack the very qualities that make humans truly human. This does not remove the tragedy of suffering, but it suggests that suffering is not pointless, and that our limited perspective may not grasp the full structure of reality.
Ultimately, belief in God survives because it answers what atheism leaves unresolved: why there is something instead of nothing, why reality is intelligible, why moral truths feel binding, and why consciousness exists at all. Atheism may reject religious institutions, myths, and traditions — and sometimes rightly so — but rejecting flawed human religion does not automatically remove the philosophical case for God. The existence of God is not only a spiritual belief; it is also a rational conclusion that continues to stand strong against the most serious objections.
In the end, the question is not whether belief in God is old-fashioned. The question is whether belief in God best explains reality. And for many thinkers across history — from classical philosophers to modern intellectuals — the answer remains yes. God is not an excuse to stop thinking. God is the point where thinking, honestly pursued, ultimately leads.
For more news read (click) also our news website
