Yes, God does not exist! No, God exists!

But would God have been the creator of everything and everyone and, in addition to being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent?...

Common sense, in one of its speeches, emphasizes the absence of God in hearts as one of the main reasons for the ills that plague these times. Wouldn't that be too simplistic a view for our lack of empathy and otherness? Would it be atheists, unreliable people or devoid of ethics and respect for others, just because they have convictions contrary to religions or deist philosophy?

Many try – through reason – to develop theories whose meanings reach their beliefs, while others discard common sense to impose their convictions. On the other hand, there are supporters of a milder position, under the cooled canopies of equilibrium, protecting themselves from heated discussions.

Philosophy, on the other hand, has always sought to question and discuss everything that afflicts humanity through reflection, argumentation and knowledge.

Still in ancient Greece, Plato already suggested the "Good" to be achieved in the world of ideas, using the sun as a source of illumination, a theory that centuries later would serve as a basis for Augustine to discuss the existence of God, making use of his Divine Illumination Theory.

The concept of ''first mover'', proclaimed by Aristotle in his metaphysics, can be interpreted as the existence of a cause that cannot be originated or finitude, being immobile, originating new causes and consequences. If this were not the case, we would go back to infinity without finding the beginning of everything, which seems less reasonable for those who believe in the divine creation of this world. Therefore, there would always be something immutable (théos), originating a chain movement, according to the Stagirite philosopher. Undoubtedly, a theory that can be used in favor of creationists.

It is important to remember that Aristotle lived in a time long before the emergence of religions as we know them today, bringing a rational connotation to the debate.

In line with the previous reflection, Thomas Aquinas, in his third way for the existence of God, declares that a contingent being (one that may or may not happen) has its efficient (originary) cause in another, unlike a necessary being (that which must exist), which has its efficient cause in itself. Thus, the sensible world (the one we live in) would be contingent and dependent on a preceding generator.

But would God have been the creator of everything and everyone and, in addition to being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, would he also be transcendent, as Christians, Muslims and Jews believe? Could we consider it immanent, as preached by pantheistic religions and the philosopher Spinoza (Deus sive natura), citing the presence of the creator in nature?

Kantian thought, even without discarding the divine presence, presumes our limitation regarding conclusions about God, since it would be difficult to substantiate something impassable by the senses, while Descartes seeks to rationalize the deific existence through an approach about the finite (the human being , for example) and the possibility of God through something above man; the infinite.

David Hume, an empiricist philosopher, was contrary to common sense and questioned metaphysics, prioritizing experience and scientific knowledge, while Nietzsche, as he killed God drowned in metaphors, determined that moral values should be found in our reality and not in the transcendental world; a thesis certainly endorsed by atheists.

These propositions call us to responsibility for our actions and give humanity a perhaps unwanted protagonism, as it removes from the divinity the role of shield over human actions, since man and religion have transformed God into a being in their images and likenesses, subverting the order of creation and imposing the concept that everything is justified by the divine (death, suffering, poverty, the privileges of kings and religious leaders), doing justice to the materialistic and artificial world in which we live.

Drawing a parallel with the predominant capitalist system, there is no way to dispute the use of God as a form of earthly investment, in order to reap dividends and blessings in an alleged paradise.

These are theories formulated and reformulated, while science advances and remains unable to prove the existence or non-existence of a divine origin for the universe, feeding agnostic voices.

Is God the answer to all our worries or the reason for harrowing questions? Would we have in the Divine a refuge for what we cannot understand and avoid, since nothing would happen if not by the deific will? Or do we have an obligation to take an active position, questioning dogmas and impositions credited to God?

The philosophical discussion on the subject is always valid because it opens the way for new ideas, being able to incorporate old conceptions with updated clothes, since it unties the alienating knots of standardization.

Thus, the importance of the debate resides more in the questions and less in the definitions, almost always framed by aporias.

When it comes to God, however much we try to refine and base our concepts, the clash will never die. However, he will be eternally condemned to faint in the avid, generous and necessary arms of faith.

Marcelo Kassab.

Writer and Dental Surgeon.