One thing that always bothers me when the Abrahamic religions try to present evidence of their God, is that the evidence, even if the claimed experiences are fully believed, can always be explained by supernatural phenomena they believe in that is not God. For example, demons/djinn can explain literally everything experienced they claim is for God, without God. Thus adding a supreme God to the mix is completely redundant. Usually, apologists will make a completely baseless assertion that supernatural entities prove God, without reason or attempt to disprove religions that believe in the same entities without a supreme God.

Now while the supreme God is important for worship in Hinduism, whether or not he exists has almost no impact on any of the other beliefs like reincarnation, so I don't really mind as much when Hindus claim evidence for God, because it doesn't change much if it turns out to be the other stuff.

Still, the question is worth asking. What is the proof for specifically the supreme God?

  • Well that is one of the main differences between Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhism makes exactly the same argument that you are making and rejects God and Soul. Hinduism especially Vedanta conjectures that God is also a supernatural entity but he is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent. And they prove his existence by Vedas and not logical proof. Hindus argue that Vedas are infallible, as they are Apaurusheya whatever they say is true. So if Vedas say there is Ishwara and God, then he's there. That's the argument.
    – user22253
    Oct 31, 2021 at 5:51
  • Proofs in spirituality are subjective not objective. I can know something to be true but can't prove the same to others. If I have done some spiritual practice and austerities and obtain some knowledge of truth why should another person get his own proof of that truth via me? What spiritual practice or merit he has to get that proof? He has to verify it himself. There is no other way in spirituality.
    – Rickross
    Oct 31, 2021 at 8:54
  • @MrGreenGold Well the supreme God could just be added so people pay attention. It seems most people will give the supreme God more attention than other parts of their faith that are just as important. Oct 31, 2021 at 16:09
  • @Rickross Even with spiritual practice and merit gaining a convincing experience, you could always explain it with demonic possession or an illusion created by an apsara or djinn. Oct 31, 2021 at 16:13
  • @AupakaranaAbhibhaa see when you say "added" you mean to imply that it was a choice. That someone made it. That would mean Vedas were written by some people in a certain way. That's not Hinduism. The basic belief is no one wrote the Vedas, that Vedas are Apaurusheya. So nobody "added" God. It was not a choice. It was revealed in the Vedas. If you think Vedas were written by someone then its a different argument. That's not Hindu. Hindu by definition believes Vedas are Apourusheya.
    – user22253
    Oct 31, 2021 at 19:20


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .