It’s not that we are against philosophical questions, but rather, some of them hold no merit

The existence of God has been one of the most debated questions in modern human history. For centuries, philosophers, theologians, and skeptics have put forth arguments both for and against the existence of a divine Creator. Some believe that reason and evidence point unmistakably toward God, while others argue that logic and science render the idea of God unnecessary or even incoherent.

Ironically, this argument is relatively new. Ancient civilizations like the Chinese, Mayans, Egyptians and so on never really questions the existence of a highly intelligent primary cause (God), since that was beyond any doubts.

I obviously have no doubts that God exists and I’m sure the astute reader doesn’t either.

However, the goal of this article will be to analyze and disprove some of the most prominent philosophical questions against God, from a Kabbalah perspective.

Hopefully those in doubt will straighten their minds to realize that God is a basic, fundamental truth of Creation and abandon silly fantasies that tell him otherwise.

Some of the philosophical questions against the existence of God

As we mentioned, philosophers and skeptics have put forward several arguments challenging the existence of God.

Little spoiler: part of the problem with these arguments lie in the facts that they a) ignore the spiritual reality of Creation and b) accept only that which can be objectively proven by science.

Below, we examine some of the most “compelling” objections:

1. The Problem of Evil

One of the most powerful arguments against the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God is the Problem of Evil. If God is omnipotent, He has the ability to prevent evil, and if He is omnibenevolent, He would want to prevent suffering. Yet, immense suffering exists in the world, from natural disasters to human cruelty.

The logical version of this argument, as formulated by Epicurus and J.L. Mackie, suggests that the presence of evil is incompatible with the existence of a perfect deity.

Refutation: God wishes to bestow upon us the ultimate good, which transcends what human beings understand as good. This ultimate good cannot be materialized in this, but rather must be earned while in this lowly existence filled with challenges. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (the Ramchal) explains that this is in order not to give us the “bread of shame” of receiving reward without work.

Would anyone agree with a child calling his parents tyrants for not giving him unlimited candy?

Of course not.

While this comparison seems unfair, there’s a parallel to be made between this example and our relationship with God, namely that only He knows what is best and this best, which is to be bestowed in the World to Come, transcends our comprehension.

This actually goes for everything we desire in life but don’t get.

2. The Argument from Incoherence

The concept of God often includes attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, yet these qualities can lead to logical contradictions. The omnipotence paradox, for example, questions whether God can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it: If He can, He is not all-powerful; if He cannot, He is also not all-powerful.

Similarly, omniscience appears to contradict human free will: if God already knows everything that will happen, then human choices are predetermined, raising questions about moral responsibility. Such paradoxes suggest that the very definition of God is logically incoherent.

Refutation: This is an argument based on the limited philosophical system of thought which postulates only the physical world exist. This is false because there are many ideas which transcends the human capacity for full description, yet they exist. Two examples that come to mind are subjective reality and Kabbalah.

Being that God transcends physicality, he cannot be judged based on the limited system of physicality in which an element can be characterized as either strong or not strong, and cannot be both. If we were forced to answer the “rock question”, we’d have to answer yes, no, maybe and everything in between at the same time, because all these are possible outcomes for God just as he could “create a circle that is also a square”, and a color that doesn’t exist in the color palette.

The issue with free will is a lot more nuanced than philosophy gives it credit for and no “one-liner explanation” can accurately solve it. One reason for it is that people can have free will up to a certain point in the tree of decisions. Beyond that, it’s all outside our range comprehension and therefore outside of our free will. This is not counting the fact that only a small part of the lowest level of our souls (the Nefesh) is generally vested in human consciousness.

We obviously assume we have free will and will be judged on that, but obviously it was God who ultimately created our initial will. Still, the soul is incredibly deep and one cannot understand it thoroughly in a normal state of consciousness, therefore one cannot see the first cause of a decision since it remains obscure for most people.

If we had to summarize: from our perspective, we do have free will. From God’s perspective, we don’t.

3. The Argument from Divine Hiddenness

If God exists and desires a relationship with humanity, one would expect His existence to be self-evident. However, many sincere seekers claim to find no convincing evidence of God, and entire civilizations have thrived with little or no knowledge of monotheism.

Philosopher J.L. Schellenberg argues that the presence of “nonresistant nonbelievers”, those who genuinely seek God but do not find Him, suggests that an all-loving deity does not exist. If a loving God truly wanted everyone to believe, divine revelation would be clear, consistent, and universally accessible.

Refutation: God is not hidden to those who seek him. If one is actively mindful of His presence, then the myriad of interactions and events a person goes through in his lifetime are very clear, uncanny, signposts from Him. Ultimately they form a “picture” of what He wants, but on His terms, not ours. And that requires a lot of self-introspection and intellectual honesty.

This refutation however rests on the realm of subjective experience, which philosophy and science are notorious for dismissing it such as “your imaginary friend” or “you are just imagining what you want”.

Unfortunately,iIf an idea does not conform to the basic principles of science like empiricism or repeatability, then it is generally rejected. Even if it does, one could always attribute it to another physical cause, such as when love is attributed to chemical reactions inside the human body and nothing else.

4. The Argument from Inconsistent Revelations

Religious traditions across the world claim to have received divine revelation, yet they often present contradictory teachings about God, morality, and salvation. If a single, true God exists, why would He allow such widespread confusion?

Bertrand Russell and David Hume argued that the diversity of religious beliefs undermines the credibility of any single faith. If one religion were correct, God could ensure that all people recognized it as true. Instead, competing scriptures, conflicting doctrines, and historical disputes over theology suggest that divine revelation is a human construct rather than a message from a universal deity.

Refutation: Not all revelations are real, and most of them are actually caused by demi-gods, the spiritual beings from lower spiritual worlds that are nevertheless in a level above us. Again, the fact that most traditions are based on an erroneous notion of who the real God is not proof that He doesn’t exist.

5. The Argument from Poor Design

The natural world contains numerous examples of flawed, inefficient, or harmful designs that challenge the notion of an intelligent creator. Evolutionary theory, as developed by Charles Darwin, provides a powerful alternative explanation for biological complexity without the need for a divine designer.

Richard Dawkins further argues that the “blind watchmaker” of natural selection accounts for life’s intricate adaptations while also explaining why biological systems often exhibit imperfections, such as the human appendix, birth defects, and genetic diseases. If an all-powerful, all-knowing designer created life, one would expect a more optimal design rather than a trial-and-error evolutionary process.

Refutation: Poor design is not a good argument since the main point of flaws is for a spiritual, not physical purpose. A sick person might complain in the hospital his bad fate and question God, but if this event ends up uniting his family and teaching him some humility, then it ultimately has a good purpose.

And this is one of the main problems we mentioned about philosophical questions. In order to better address this, we need to consider the entire spiritual system of Creation and its underlying principles which establishes that everything has a Tikkun (cosmological rectification), so even if something is not perfect, it is could be in order to rectify a previous sin or to prevent further suffering.

In other words: physical defects or inefficiencies serve spiritual purposes and are not an end in themselves.

And again, God might actually disagree with us on what true good is.

6. The Argument from Non-Cognitivism

Some philosophers, including A.J. Ayer and Ludwig Wittgenstein, argue that statements about God are not just false but meaningless. Logical positivism asserts that for a statement to be meaningful, it must be empirically verifiable or logically necessary.

Since claims about God’s existence do not meet these criteria, they are considered nonsensical from a linguistic standpoint. Additionally, theological concepts such as “infinity,” “eternity,” and “omnipotence” are often defined in ways that make them incomprehensible, further challenging the rational coherence of theism.

Refutation: In all technical sense this could work for both sides. Spiritually advanced humans can conceive the notion of “infinity” and “eternity”, and experience supernatural revelations.

The “spiritual experience” people from many traditions have can have a powerful effect on the psyche bringing healing (even physical), sense of purpose, inner peace, energy, faith and a plethora of other benefits.

Nowadays many scientific studies even attest to this fact.

For instance, a study funded by the Fetzer Institute, conducted by Dr. Stephanie Trudeau and colleagues, found that transcendent experiences help individuals find meaning in their lives and motivate them to align their actions with their sources of meaning.

See: The Power of Transcendence and Spirituality in a Modern World

In the realm of neuroscience, research has identified neural mechanisms associated with spiritual transcendence. Investigations from social science and neuroscience have contributed to understanding how selflessness and spiritual experiences manifest in the brain.

See: Neuroscience and Spirituality: Exploring Selflessness and Transcendence (Published in The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion)

Furthermore, other studies have explored the mental states associated with self-transcendent experiences, ranging from feelings of love to spiritual enlightenment. Researchers have described these experiences along a continuum and spectrum of intensity, providing a framework for understanding their psychological and physiological aspects.

See: Research on Self-Transcendent Experiences and Their Mental States (Published by Vanderbilt University Medical Center)

These sources provide insights into the psychological, neurological, and philosophical dimensions of transcendence and spirituality.

7. The Argument from Causality and Infinite Regress

Theists often argue that everything must have a cause, leading to the need for a “First Cause” or “Unmoved Mover” (God). However, skeptics like David Hume and Bertrand Russell challenge this reasoning by questioning why God should be exempt from causality. If everything requires a cause, then God Himself must have a cause; if God is exempt, then why not simply say that the universe itself is uncaused?

Refutation: The fact that we establish a rule of a preceding causes does not preclude us from actually arriving at the starting point from which there’s nothing before it. Unlike humans, who can generally trace back events to a previous cause, God is the exception to this rule.

In fact, many, if not most rules have exceptions.

(This is actually a pretty dumb argument…)

8. The Argument from the Existence of Naturalism

Science has progressively explained many aspects of the universe that were once attributed to divine intervention, from the motion of planets to the origins of life. The principle of Occam’s Razor suggests that if natural explanations suffice, invoking God as an additional explanatory factor is unnecessary.

With physics, chemistry, and biology continuously uncovering new mechanisms that govern reality, belief in God becomes less a necessity and more a philosophical assumption. If the universe can be fully explained through natural laws, then positing God as an extra entity violates the principle of simplicity.

Refutation: Again, many rules have an exception and even though Occam’s razor can be applied in a case, it doesn’t mean it should be applied. Many phenomena on paranormal investigation can be easily replicated with science, but this doesn’t prove they aren’t real since the easiest explanation is not necessarily always the true one.

Case in point: I once watched a video of an elder Taoist master who once burned a piece of paper with energy (chi). A certain “skeptic” pointed out that this could easily be replicated with a special paper that upon contact with the hand (or sunlight) would combust on its own.

The real “scientific” debunking proof would be to bring an industrial thermometer to the Taoist master to hold it and ask him to raise its temperature. If he could elevate the thermometer’s temperature, it’s real. If not, it’s fake.

The Logical Problems with Philosophy

When engaging in the debate over God’s existence, we must first acknowledge the fundamental limitations of human reasoning. Philosophy, as a tool for understanding reality, relies on logic of the physical world, but logic itself is constrained by human cognition. The vastness of existence, the nature of infinity, and the complexities of consciousness all present challenges that philosophy may not be fully equipped to resolve. These philosophical questions against God then tend to very easily fall apart, especially for people who are more spiritually sensitive.

Here are some of the limitations philosophers face:

1. The Limits of Human Cognition

One of the core problems with philosophical inquiry is that it is conducted by finite minds attempting to comprehend potentially infinite realities. The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in Critique of Pure Reason that human reason is bound by the conditions of space and time, making it incapable of truly grasping metaphysical realities beyond empirical experience.

This means that any argument about God, whether for or against, risks being a projection of human conceptual limits rather than an objective assessment of truth.

Additionally, cognitive biases play a significant role in shaping philosophical arguments. Psychological research has demonstrated that humans are prone to confirmation bias, wherein they favor information that aligns with their existing beliefs.

This raises the question: Are philosophical questions against God genuine reflections of truth, or are they intellectual justifications for pre-existing inclinations in judgment?

2. The Problem of Self-Referencing Logic

Philosophical arguments often rely on self-referential logic, which can lead to paradoxes and contradictions. For example, the Liar Paradox (“This statement is false”) illustrates how certain logical structures collapse when applied to themselves. Similarly, when philosophy tries to define God who is “by definition” beyond human comprehension, it risks engaging in circular reasoning or logical inconsistencies.

This issue is evident in debates over omnipotence. Arguments such as the “paradox of the stone” (Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?) expose the limitations of human logic when applied to divine attributes which transcend the physical reality.

3. The Issue of Contradictory Conclusions

Philosophy has produced a wide range of arguments both for and against God’s existence, yet these arguments frequently contradict one another. For instance, some philosophers use the existence of moral law to argue for a divine lawgiver (the Moral Argument), while others use the problem of evil to argue against an all-good God.

If pure reason alone were sufficient to resolve the debate, one side would have been conclusively proven correct by now. The continued presence of conflicting philosophical positions suggests that reason alone may be inadequate for addressing metaphysical questions.

Ironically, many philosopher’s arguing against the existence of God also deny free will. If we’d extend the consequences of this position, we’d have to ask ourselves “why are people judged in court” if they cannot control themselves? When applied to an extreme, this would lead to the abolishment of civil law altogether, and collapse of society. Since life’s purpose and the afterlife are also “questionable”, then one wonders why we haven’t yet done all this.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Despite the challenges posed by atheistic and skeptical arguments, many philosophers and theologians maintain that belief in God is rational and well-supported by reason, logic, and evidence. The following arguments provide some of the strongest philosophical justifications for the existence of a divine being.

1. The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument asserts that the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and that explanation is God. One of the most famous versions, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, was revitalized by William Lane Craig and argues that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and therefore, the universe must have a cause. This is known in Kabbalah as the state of Ein Sof.

Since the cause must be beyond time, space, and matter, it must be an immaterial, timeless, and powerful entity, attributes often ascribed to God. Critics argue that quantum mechanics allows for causeless events, but defenders maintain that Creation’s very existence points to an ultimate necessary being.

2. The Teleological (Design) Argument

The Teleological Argument, also known as the Argument from Design, suggests that the complexity and order of the universe imply an intelligent designer. The fine-tuning of physical constants, such as the force of gravity or the cosmological constant, has led modern philosophers like Robin Collins to argue that such precise conditions are astronomically improbable if left to chance.

Even some non-theistic scientists, like Fred Hoyle, have acknowledged the remarkable “fine-tuning” of the universe. Theistic proponents claim that this precision points to a purposeful Creator. While naturalistic explanations such as the multiverse hypothesis attempt to counter this argument, they often lack empirical evidence and raise even further philosophical questions.

3. The Moral Argument

The Moral Argument posits that objective moral values and duties exist (such as the prohibition of adultery and murder) and that God is the best explanation for their existence. William Lane Craig and C.S. Lewis have argued that concepts of moral good and evil are not merely subjective human opinions but require an absolute moral lawgiver.

Without God, morality would be reduced to social constructs or evolutionary byproducts, lacking any binding force. Atheistic moral realists argue that morality can exist independently of God, but theists respond that a purely materialistic worldview struggles to provide an ultimate foundation for moral obligations.

4. The Argument from Consciousness

The nature of human consciousness and self-awareness presents a challenge to materialism and suggests a deeper, non-physical reality. Philosopher David Chalmers has argued that subjective experience, or qualia, cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone.

If consciousness is not reducible to mere neural activity, this opens the door to the idea that it originates from a higher, immaterial source namely, God. Theists argue that the human capacity for rational thought, introspection, and free will points to a divine origin rather than a purely mechanistic universe.

There’s also plenty of scientific research that point out that consciousness (i.e. the soul) originates from outside the physical body. Other studies from the CIA have pointed out to the existence of Astral Projection and Out-of-body experiences. See here.

5. The Argument from Religious Experience

Throughout history, countless individuals have reported profound religious experiences, visions, and encounters with divine beings. William James and Richard Swinburne have argued that these experiences provide strong personal evidence for God’s existence, much like firsthand experiences serve as evidence for external reality.

I wouldn’t say people met God face-to-face since the destruction of the Second Temple, as the pathway to Atzilut is closed, but many have met demi-gods and other spiritual creatures, who all point out to the fact that God does exist.

While skeptics attribute these events to psychological or neurological causes, the sheer number and consistency of such experiences across different cultures and religions suggest that they cannot all be dismissed as mere hallucinations.

6. Pascal’s Wager

While not a traditional proof, Blaise Pascal’s Wager argues that belief in God is the most rational choice. If God exists, the believer gains infinite rewar