3.There is no god. Sartre criticisms the traditional concept of god asens causa sui. If God causes himself, He must stand at a distancefrom himself. This makes god dependent upon something fromwhich he is at a distance. It means that his existences is contingentand if god is not contingent, He does not exist. If there is god, Hecannot create being-in-itself exnihilo.”A creation exnihilo cannotexplain the coming to pass of bring, for it being is conceived in asubjectivity, even a divine subjectivity, it remains a mode of intrasubjectivity being. Such subjectivity cannot have even therepresentation of an objectivity, and consequently it cannot even beaffected with the will to cerate the objective”
Furthermore, god cannot be regarded an intelligent being who bothtranscends and includes the totality. “for the god is consciousness,he is integrated in the totality . And if by his nature he is he is abeing beyond consciousness (that is, an in-itself which would be itsown foundation) still the totality can appear to him only as an object(in that case he lacks the totality’s internal integration as thesubjective effort to reprehend the self) on as subject (then sinceGod is not this subject, he can only experience it without knowingit). Thus, no point of view on the totality is conceivable; the totalityhas no outside and the very question of the meaning of the ‘under-side’ is stripped of meaning. We cannot go further”.
Actually God is the fundamental project of for itself . The for it self perpetually tries to grasp in it self to get rid of the nothingness which itcarries But it can never be successful, Because it become being in itself itlose consciousness which is the very negation of bring. So the fundamentalproject is to be founder of being of its being i.e. to be for itself-in- self. Thispossible combination is, in the theological terms, God is fundamental butunsuccessful project of for itself, there is no escape from the gratuitousabsurdity of the world and his being.4. As far as the origin of for itself is concerned, no metaphysical theoryis possible in the light of ontological findings. For-itself as the negation of being is dependent for its being on being-in-itself. But in-itself cannot be thecause of for-itself To be a cause requires unity with the effect and being-in-itself cannot be its own negation without being consciousness. So only as if explanation is possible. Regarding the origin of consciousness ontology candeclare only that every thing takes place as if the in itself in a project tofound itself gave itself the modifications of for itself.2