A atheist asked me, "why do you believe in God?". I answered," because I enjoy bliss and happiness in the name of my holy lord." He said, "that is not bliss, this is your sentiments."

I ponder about it and cannot answer him back because he is somewhere true.

He said, "Believing in God and seeking mental power from him is a symptom of a weak mind.

Is my mind really weak? Is that my tears, goosebumps and all the feelings, just my sentiments?? please answer.I really need

  • The atheist also must be relying on something(s) to keep himself happy - like friends, family or food, outings, hobbies etc. Can we say that his mind is also weak, as he relies on other things to keep himself happy or contented? 😉
    – estimator
    Jan 15 at 12:19
  • Just say quite simply I feel happy having faith or trust in god's existence and his teachings help me. Being frank is the best way possible. This is what I say.
    – Haridasa
    Jan 15 at 19:21
  • In my opinion, a weak mind is one who isn't willing to access a concept even if not verifiable, but positive to one's wellbeing and joy just due to one's arrogance and philosophy.
    – Haridasa
    Jan 15 at 19:24

3 Answers 3


He said, "Believing in God and seeking mental power from him is a symptom of a weak mind.

Is my mind really weak? Is that my tears, goosebumps and all the feelings, just my sentiments?? please answer. I really need

Atheists are typically the type of people who don't believe in the existence of external gods. Given, that he doesn't believe in any existence of gods in general, it is very easy to establish that you aren't seeking any mental power from any external agent. In such cases when no external influence affects the mind and strengthens it, then, it is only your mind that is the source of all the bliss and happiness, hence not weak (contradictory to his statement).

Is it possible to prove the existence of external God?

No. It isn't.

This is why there are externally godless versions of philosophies that come into play that don't require any external gods by default.

In this view, jivatman, the experiencing self, is ultimately non-different ("na aparah") from Ātman-Brahman, the highest Self or Reality.[3][7][8][note 4] The jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singular Ātman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.[9]

Wikipedia. Advaita Vedanta. Date Accessed: 15-01-24

Sankhya/Yoga School:

According to Sinha, the following arguments were given by Samkhya philosophers against the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God:[153]

  1. If the existence of karma is assumed, the proposition of God as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary. For, if God enforces the consequences of actions then he can do so without karma. If however, he is assumed to be within the law of karma, then karma itself would be the giver of consequences and there would be no need of a God.

  2. Even if karma is denied, God still cannot be the enforcer of consequences. Because the motives of an enforcer God would be either egoistic or altruistic. Now, God's motives cannot be assumed to be altruistic because an altruistic God would not create a world so full of suffering. If his motives are assumed to be egoistic, then God must be thought to have desire, as agency or authority cannot be established in the absence of desire. However, assuming that God has desire would contradict God's eternal freedom which necessitates no compulsion in actions. Moreover, desire, according to Samkhya, is an attribute of prakṛti and cannot be thought to grow in God. The testimony of the Vedas, according to Samkhya, also confirms this notion.

  3. Despite arguments to the contrary, if God is still assumed to contain unfulfilled desires, this would cause him to suffer pain and other similar human experiences. Such a worldly God would be no better than Samkhya's notion of higher self.

  4. Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of God. He is not the object of perception, there exists no general proposition that can prove him by inference and the testimony of the Vedas speak of prakṛti as the origin of the world, not God.

Wikipedia. Samkhya. Date Accessed: 15-01-24

Nyaya School

As a matter of fact, we find that Man, desiring a certain thing, does not always obtain the fruit of his desire; hence it is inferred that Man's acquisition of the fruits of his actions is dependent upon some other person; and that person upon whom it is dependent is God; hence it follows that God is the Cause[.]... "If the appearance of fruits were dependent on God, then such fruits could be accomplished even without the desire of man." ... As a matter of fact, God helps the effort of Man; i.e., when Man is trying to obtain a particular fruit, it is God that accomplishes that fruit for him; when God does not accomplish it, Man's action becomes fruitless; hence since things are thus influenced by God, what has been urged to the effect that - "as a matter of fact no fruit appears without Man's action" - is no reason at all.


Nyaya School (Rejection on the existence of the God)

The Lord is the cause, since we see that human action lacks results. This is not so since, as a matter of fact, no result is accomplished without human action. Since this is efficacious, the reason lacks force.

— Nyaya Sutra, IV.1.19 - IV.1.21 [57]

A literal interpretation of the three verses suggests that Nyāya school rejected the need for a God for the efficacy of human activity. Since human action and results do not require assumption or need of the existence of God, sutra IV.1.21 is seen as a criticism of the "existence of God and theism postulate".[57]

Wikipedia.Nyaya. Date Accessed: 15-01-24

Definition of God, through Self

In summary, it is difficult to prove the existence of external god through any means to an atheist. There are means to get over it via the Advaitic Definition of God through self via Taittiriya Upanishad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftn4zCnheBk

  • Nyaya sutras accept god, but more deistically I think
    – Haridasa
    Jan 15 at 20:53
  • @Haridasa Which god? Brahman or ishvara?
    – user29449
    Jan 16 at 4:56
  • Ishvara that concept
    – Haridasa
    Jan 16 at 13:36
  • @Haridasa Ishvara is not required, because the law of karma is self-existent. What would be the role of Ishvara here?
    – user29449
    Jan 16 at 13:44
  • Ishvara is needed all effects come from causes there has to be a first cause after all. The Vedas are wholly infallible and only an infallible author could write such. Lastly, one is the only directly perceivable object. From one thing we get two, three, four, and so on. So one has to be god. Finally, words have meaning to them referring to a specific object that meaning is god.
    – Haridasa
    Jan 16 at 14:22

Your mind is not weak and even great warriors in past also had belief in God.

Maybe you want proof

Rebirth can prove existence of soul, karma and God

Sources :

Reincarnation Research

More than 2,500 cases have been studied and their specifications have been published and preserved in the archives of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia (United States)(Source)

Ian Stevenson recorded case studies of young children who claimed to remember past lives. He published twelve books, including Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects (a two-part monograph), European Cases of the Reincarnation Type, and Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.

Also all characteristics of initial kaliyug told in Mahabharat are true

Men with false reputation of learning will, by their acts, cause Truth to be contracted and concealed. And in consequence of the shortness of their lives they will not be able to acquire much knowledge. And in consequence of the littleness of their knowledge, they will have no wisdom. And for this, covetousness and avarice will overwhelm them all. And wedded to avarice and wrath and ignorance and lust men will entertain animosities towards one another, desiring to take one another's lives.

....opposed to one another, men will, at such a time, seek one another's lives; and divested of Yuga, people will become atheists and thieves.

...men will seek those countries where wheat and barley form the staple food.

Example :UK, Germany, USA, France, Canada ,Spain, Australia

enter image description here enter image description here

Even after this you are doubtful, my only recommendation to you is try the path mentioned in scriptures which lead to moksha , siddhi Or kundalini


Is my mind really weak?

I don't think it is possible to assess whether you have a weak mind or not with the provided information.

In itself believing or not in God does not preclude whether your mind is weak or strong. Many simple people as well many bright scientists and philosophers believe(d) in God.

Or one may argue that mind, in the sense of only the logical mind, is very limited and in that sense always weak.

On the other hand you are able to doubt and reevaluate your believes while the other person is not able to reconsider their position provided that neither of you have definitive proof of your positions. So I would consider your mind to be more flexible. Some people may mistake that for weakness.

And while on it, no, he doesn't have a proof even if he believes so, and if he believes he has, that won't be a good indicator for a strong mind.

Is that my tears, goosebumps and all the feelings, just my sentiments??

I can't judge your experiences from aside. But also I'm not sure where are you getting at with this question.

If you are looking for a definitive proof, I don't think you can have it before your consciousness, as described in the scriptures, "melts back into Spirit".

You can be satisfied with what you feel in your hearth, all the support you feel in your life (if you feel such), etc. Or if that is not enough for you, you can obtain more information for your logical mind and look whether the mechanical understanding of the world provides a satisfactory explanation of observable phenomena or not.

There are plenty of examples in nature, art and engineering that can be used to evaluate for yourself whether random interactions and pure logic could produce them.

  • 2
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please edit to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Jan 16 at 4:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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