The Question of the Existence of God is meaningless, and Here is Why.

Does God exist? Is there somebody watching us i

Is our life predetermined?

Cutting the long answer short, we don't know.

It is extremely difficult, and to an extent pointless, to either prove or disprove the existence of God, and I shall come to it forthwith.

The existence of God, or a supernatural entity that pervades, transcends and governs reality has been debated since antiquity. Several Indian and Greek philosophers have questioned the very nature of Godhood on grounds of empirical evidence and the evident presence of debauchery, evil and pestilence in the world, the latter of which is popularly known as the Argument from Morality. 

Let us look at the popularized Epucurial argument to understand how a certain "definition" of God is not compatible with reality. 

(Photo credits: Reddit).

Thus, from a very logical moral perspective, the concept of a benevolent and omnipotent God seems untenable; with all due respect, arguments insinuating that God "allows" such actions and "intervenes only when necessary" do not hold much water. Evidence insinuates that this "God" never chose to intervene, something that is inherently contradictory to his own supposed nature. 

Furthermore, omnipotence and free will cannot co-exist; the existence of one will, by definition, nullify the existence of the other. Let me substantiate this assertion.

Let us assume that I have a desire to eat three halves of a pizza. However, certain circumstances force me to eat only two. Even then, I may choose to eat three.

Now, since God is omniscient, he already knows what I am going to do, and what he knows is eventually what I am going to do; under such circumstances, I will have no free will. 

However, we have evidence to the contrary. I, for instance, have the choice of either publishing this post or not publishing it. 

The issue lies in understanding the concept of Godhood. Several philosophers have attempted to define Godhood to prove that God exists, and this is where the problem begins. There is nothing that implies the precedence of one definition over the other; all definitions and attributes of God are equally valid and equally invalid. Take for instance the definition of God as given by St. Anselm:

"A being greater than which nothing can be conceived." 

This is one of the many forms of the Ontological Argument―the definitional argument. 

The issue lies in the ontological vocabulary used; it necessitates the existence of God by defining it/him as the greatest conceivable being. This, I believe, is what I would call "convenient reasoning" since Anselm worded his definition to posit God's existence as something necessary. In some way or form, Anselm seems to have committed the fallacy of begging the question. I can define God as "that which created the Universe", on the (safe) premise that the Universe was "created"; I do not wish to dwell on the nature of such creation. 

Furthermore, the premise of the argument is human perception, which by all means is limited. The mere conception of something does not materialize it. 

Similarly, I have reservations against the teleological and cosmological argument, but I would not like to unnecessarily lengthen this dissertation. I shall treat each of the arguments separately in upcoming posts. 

Thus, the question of whether God exists is meaningless since the subject itself is undefined and indeterminate.