I haven't seen or experienced him. So how do I say God exists? If you are giving example of oxygen or air, I would say I can at least feel it. How can you say God exists even thought you can't of feel it? Science doesn't approve existence of God. What's the proof that God exists? Edit: my question is how do you prove his existence

  • 6
    I have never tasted sugar. Can you prove to me that sugar tastes sweet ? But one condition, you should not force me to eat sugar. You can use any other method to prove to me that sugar tastes sweet. Can you do it ? – mar Jan 30 '19 at 5:38
  • 1
    At least I can taste sugar. You can't experience God – Pratik Jan 30 '19 at 5:45
  • Look at Vedanta Sutra 1.1.3 and 2.1.27 – Spark Sunshine Jan 30 '19 at 6:04
  • @PratikCJoshi because Sugar is material or physical entity. Brahman (or ultimate reality) is beyond mind or senses. So, you can't feel that with senses or other instruments (which are again but senses). – The Destroyer Jan 30 '19 at 6:08
  • 3
    @NaveenKick You could convert your comments into an answer, it will be more helpful that way. – user9440 Jan 30 '19 at 13:59

my question is how do you prove his existence?

Swami krishnananda logically proves (mostly from Advaitic perspective) God/Brahman exists in his book Lessons on the Upanishads.

Swamiji proves there is something which doesn't change in everything and says that is nothing but Brahman (ultimate Reality).

We begin to feel there must be something above this world. This was what the great poets and the sages of the Vedas felt. Everything seems to be transitory, moving, and in a state of flux. There is change in nature, change in human history, change in our own mental and biological constitution, change in even the solar system, the astronomical setup of things. Everything is changing. The perception of change is something very important for us to consider. How do we know that things are changing, that things are moving or are transitory? There is a logical peculiarity, a significance and a subtlety at the back of this ability on our part to perceive change and transition in things. A thing that changes cannot perceive change by itself. Change cannot know change. Only that which does not change can know that there is change.

This is a very important point at the rock bottom of our thinking that we have to recognise. If everything is changing, who is it that is telling us that everything is changing? Are we also changing with the things that change? If that is the case, how do we come to know that all things are changing? Logical analysis of this peculiar analytical circumstance tells us that there is something in us which does not change; otherwise, we would not know that things are changing.

Now, if oneself – this person or that person – seems to be obliged to recognise something in one's own self that does not seem to be changing because one perceives change in general, we also have to be charitable enough to accept that everyone in the world has this something which does not change. I have something in me which does not change, and you also have something in you that does not change. If this is the case, it seems to be everywhere. It does not mean that this unchanging so-called thing is only in one person, as all persons have an equal prerogative to conclude that something unchanging seems to be there, speaking in a language which is not subject to connection with changeable objects.

The Veda Samhitas to which I have made reference – which are the outpourings of spiritual seekers, sages and masters of advanced religious thought and spiritual perfection – felt the presence everywhere of something that does not change. All things seem to be embedded with something that cannot change. This is due to a logical conclusion to which we are led – namely, that the perception of change would not be possible if everything, including oneself, including even the perceiver of change, also changes. Therefore, transitoriness implies a non-transitory background of things.

The whole universe of perception, the entire creation, may be said to be involved basically, at the root, in something which cannot be said to change. This is an adorable and most praiseworthy conclusion, and anything that is adorable is a worshipful something. These masters of the Vedas Samhitas, therefore, recognised a divinity in all things. There is a god behind every phenomenon, which is another way of saying there is an imperishable background behind every perishable phenomenon. The sun rises in the east, the sun sets in the west; clouds gather, pour rain and then go; seasons change; something comes, something goes; we are born, we become old and we also go. Everything is changing, everywhere, even in the vast universe of astronomical calculation.

That which doesn't change (underlying reality) is called by various names such as Purusha, Brahman, Atman (which is same as Brahman as per Advaita), consciousness etc. You can read complete introduction to understand it in more detail.

What logically said by Swamiji "that which doesn't change is present in every being, every phenomenon" is present in Vedas also. For example, Sri Rudram says this ultimate reality (as Rudra) is present in everything . See this answer. Very first verse of Isha Upanishad states:

ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।
‘Whatever there is changeful in this ephemeral world, all that must be enveloped by the Lord

Book God exists by Swami Sivananda might be also useful. Swami Sivananda explains logically by answering various questions of an atheist/agnostic and also quoting direct verses from scriptures.

  • God does not necessarily mean Brahman. it means Bhagavan also Who respinds to calks, listens to prayers and saves from danger.Existence of God can not be proved. And Krishnanandaji's expl is true so long as one is alive. if I die with my body, there is no eternal consciousness.So atheists are never convinced:) – user17294 Jan 30 '19 at 7:17
  • @ParthaBanerjee Yes. English word "God" is not Brahman. It can be used for Deva but even it is always better to use word "Deva". Obviously, existence of God can't be proved but we can at least logically explain that Brahman exists and indeed He alone is Sat-Chid-Ananda. – The Destroyer Jan 30 '19 at 7:19
  • 1
    Excellent answer!! – user9969 Jan 30 '19 at 7:26
  • If Bhagavan exists, He or She is also Sachchidananda:) i dont want to be sugar, i like to eat sugar:) – user17294 Jan 30 '19 at 7:27
  • 3
    This proves absolutely nothing and is not logic at all. – Wikash_ Jan 30 '19 at 20:20

No, God's existence can never be 'proved' to others. In our scriptures, this experience is called स्वसंवेद्य meaning it can be experienced only by the self.

The concept of God varies from sect to sect. Also, the words Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan has different meanings.

And the tranlation of proof to sanskrit could be 'Pramana'. In Indian spiriculture culture, the sayings of the Vedas and seers are accepted as Pramana. But that is not applicable to someone who is still thinking of whether to accept this tradition or not.

Also, proof or logic is related to mind and intellect while our scriptures say that God is experienced beyond mind and intellect.

So I say, the existence of God CAN NOT BE PROVED.

  • Did you see the God? – Pratik Jan 30 '19 at 5:51
  • 3
    @PratikCJoshi Ha Ha! would i then be a writing onmsuch networks? i wd have been left everything and be absorbed in God:) – user17294 Jan 30 '19 at 5:56
  • PratikCJoshi, have u seen Newton or Dinosaurs or any other historic beings. You've only read about them in books and you still believe them. Similarly, earlier people have seen Gods,they know of their stories and deeds and therefore they have described the same in books for future generations to refer. If you can't believe on Hindu scriptures as they are only written texts then there should be no reason to believe the other things also that you haven't seen physically. – Aby Jan 30 '19 at 7:01
  • @Aby how can you believe in magic God did in past? I mean is it even possible? – Pratik Jan 30 '19 at 13:34
  • how can you say they were just magic & not advanced science. I believe that was advanced science like Pushpak Viman working with Voice command or Gestures or difficult surgeries like head transplant of Lord Ganesha, etc. It may be the case that they look magic to us but same is true with many scientific things of today also. I think it was either the writers who dont know detail of these sciences so they just described these things without explaining the complex procedure behind these or they wanted to write the text simply for common people to understand without going into complexities. – Aby Feb 1 '19 at 3:03

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .