暴走バイセコーコミュのGod exists or not

もしかしたら興味がある人がいるかもしれないからアップします！！論文です。　たまにある文法ミスは気にしないでね（笑）

Does the existence of suffering prove that God dose not exist?
Does it make it unlikely that God exist?

One of the general arguments used to prove the existence of God could be the existence of evil. This can prove the following arguments.

(1) If God were to exist, then that being would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good (all-PKG, for short)

(2) If an all-PKG being existed , then there would be no suffering

(3) There is suffering

(4) Therefore, there is no God.

The above argument seems to be sound, in which it has true conclusions. To prove for or against this, it is necessary to argue what is God and what is suffering. The above argument will be discussed in terms of existence of God and suffering.

To start off, I will define the God by comparisons of the monotheism, the belief that there is only one profit, and the polytheism, the belief that there are numerous Gods. Some famous monotheism religions are Christianity and Muslim. The most famous polytheism can be Buddhism and Hinduism. The conspicuous characteristics of a monotheistic God would be omnipotent, maximally powerful, omniscient, maximally knowledgeable and omnibenevolent, perfectly good. Obviously, polytheistic profits are not like this, so there are numerous Gods in the universe. Likewise there are a huge number of scientists for each ground.
These different of concepts of God must suggest something. The identification of the original concept of God, without any perceptions, could solve these conundrums. In other words, we should evaluate the causes to why concepts of God have been created, to identify the origin of God.
One explanation could be the justification of people facing desperate circumstances such as death. They must throw themselves on “some transcendent being” even if there is no religion and concept of God. Similarly, if people face unknown fortunate circumstances often called miracles, they will be blessed by “something”. This some transcendent being and something the must be identical as both of them are unknown beings and are never the same being dependent on people. As the result, even if these circumstances are of an unchangeable end such as death, it can be reconciled as it is God’s sake or when they face unknown fortune conditions, they bless this being for it. What if there is not such a being? Then people would not deal with these stresses. It should be the basis of God. Hence, God can exist in the mind as a dependable being. This is similar to the concept of polytheistic.
However, some argue that there is a maximally perfect being which is God in mind and reality (1). Therefore, there are contradictions between (1) and origin of God. Precisely, (1) could be possible, however it cannot be reached as if there is a maximally perfect being in terms of power, knowledge and goodness, it should be a transcendent being. The reason why we cannot even perceive this image is that the transcendent being is too great for our imaginations. For example, apes cannot manufacture cars because they cannot even imagine what is car and never seen an object that moves as fast as a car. This means human beings create things that are above an ape’s imagination. It can be said that human beings are transcendent being for apes. Therefore, it can be possible that there is a transcendent existence that is too great for our imaginations and might be called God. If so, dilemmas such as the paradox of the stone can be solved. The paradox of the stone refers to the question of if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent, whether or not he can create a stone which cannot be lifted. However, it can also prove the incapacities of God because he cannot lift such a stone even though he is omnipotent. Nevertheless, if God is the transcendent being, he can solve these dilemmas in a way human being cannot imagine.
To summarise this section, there are two possible explanations to the existence of God, the existence of God in mind and the reality of God as a transcendent being.

Secondly, the debate of if God exists based on the argument of suffering. This can be argued because the feeling of suffering can be different depending on the person. For example, the most typical type of suffering which people will mention is that existence of disease or disaster. Obviously these examples will make human beings suffer as evil. When people face these situations, they will definitely appreciate the condition they were in before hand. In other words, suffering can be said to a deteriorating situation. Therefore, even people who appear to be content in terms of others, can be said to be suffering. For example, if someone have $100 million and if he/she lost $99 million, it can be said to be a misfortune event even he/she still has $1 million because of a deteriorating situation. However, if someone has no money, and they obtain $1 million accidentally, it is definitely called fortune. The two of cases have exactly same conclusion, but the former can be said an encounter of evil, and the latter, an encounter of fortune, an antonym of evil. Therefore, it can be controversial of whether there is goodness without suffering? This can be because the existence of evil can also prove the existence of pleasure. For instance, when people recover from an illness, they will appreciate it, since their condition improved and are healthier than before. These are the typical types of changing situations from evil to pleasurable. However, what if someone recovered their illness, but wanted to die. What I am trying to say is that the origin of evil can be determined by the situation in which people stand. It can also be said that an existence of the degree of evil is decided by feelings rather than conclusions. These feelings could be jealousy or envy for the previously better condition. If so, it has solved the hypothesis that human beings cannot live without evil. If there is no suffering such as disease, it could cause the problem of over-population, a devastating problem for us. This answer might be true. Remember that evil exists in the mind as people’s feelings and reality in deteriorating situations.

I analyzed the existence of God and suffering so far. Then I concluded that God can exist in the mind as a dependable being or a transcendent being. I also concluded that suffering exists in mind and reality. Therefore, new arguments can be created.

(a) There is a God in mind as a dependable being and could be all-PKG being.

(b) If there is an all-PKG being then there would be no suffering.

(c) There is suffering in mind and reality

(d) However, the suffering in mind can be helped (1) but not in reality.

(e) Therefore, there is no God in reality.

Otherwise
(A)There is God in mind and reality as the transcendent being as well as all-PKG.

(B)A transcendent being should be beyond our imaginations.

(C)If there is all-PKG being then there would be no suffering.

(D)There is suffering in mind and reality.

(E)Therefore there is no God in mind and reality.

(F)However, (E) is false because all-PKG being solve this dilemma in unimaginable ways.

It seems the former argument is sound as I justified that God exists in mind (a) in stead of (1) and that suffering exist in the mind and in reality (c), so premise (a) counteracts (c). As the result, premise (d) is proved. Therefore, a conclusion of this argument is (e).
In addition, the latter argument is also sound as I defined God as a transcendent being, (A) and (B). Therefore, even (E), God will solve this dilemma (F).

In conclusion, I analyzed the existence of God in terms of origin and also concluded that God exists in mind as a dependable being or a transcendent being. Moreover, the existence of suffering was also justified. I rewrote the first argument into the second and completed that there is no God in reality. In addition I suggested another possibility to the existence of God. That being that God is a transcendent being hence we cannot even imagine his powers. Therefore, I concluded that even if there is no God in mind and reality, this dilemma will be denied by all- PKG being with unimaginable way. At the same time I lead another contradiction that I conclude if there is an all- PKG being, it is also a transcendent being. A transcendent being cannot be imagined, as I mentioned. So it cannot be, as I already imagined. Therefore……..