What's the proof that God exists?
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
gods belief
New contributor
|
show 5 more comments
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
gods belief
New contributor
2
Possible duplicate of If God exists why doesn't he want to be seen?
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
1 hour ago
5
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 ?
– ram
1 hour ago
At least I can taste sugar. You can't experience God
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
Look at Vedanta Sutra 1.1.3 and 2.1.27
– Naveen Kick
1 hour ago
@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♦
1 hour ago
|
show 5 more comments
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
gods belief
New contributor
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
gods belief
gods belief
New contributor
New contributor
edited 1 hour ago
Pratik C Joshi
New contributor
asked 2 hours ago
Pratik C JoshiPratik C Joshi
1244
1244
New contributor
New contributor
2
Possible duplicate of If God exists why doesn't he want to be seen?
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
1 hour ago
5
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 ?
– ram
1 hour ago
At least I can taste sugar. You can't experience God
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
Look at Vedanta Sutra 1.1.3 and 2.1.27
– Naveen Kick
1 hour ago
@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♦
1 hour ago
|
show 5 more comments
2
Possible duplicate of If God exists why doesn't he want to be seen?
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
1 hour ago
5
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 ?
– ram
1 hour ago
At least I can taste sugar. You can't experience God
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
Look at Vedanta Sutra 1.1.3 and 2.1.27
– Naveen Kick
1 hour ago
@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♦
1 hour ago
2
2
Possible duplicate of If God exists why doesn't he want to be seen?
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
1 hour ago
Possible duplicate of If God exists why doesn't he want to be seen?
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
1 hour ago
5
5
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 ?
– ram
1 hour ago
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 ?
– ram
1 hour ago
At least I can taste sugar. You can't experience God
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
At least I can taste sugar. You can't experience God
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
Look at Vedanta Sutra 1.1.3 and 2.1.27
– Naveen Kick
1 hour ago
Look at Vedanta Sutra 1.1.3 and 2.1.27
– Naveen Kick
1 hour ago
@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♦
1 hour ago
@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♦
1 hour ago
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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:)
– Partha Banerjee
17 mins ago
@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♦
15 mins ago
1
Excellent answer!!
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
8 mins ago
If Bhagavan exists, He or She is also Sachchidananda:) i dont want to be sugar, i like to eat sugar:)
– Partha Banerjee
7 mins ago
add a comment |
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 C Joshi
1 hour ago
3
@PratikCJoshi Ha Ha! would i then be a writing onmsuch networks? i wd have been left everything and be absorbed in God:)
– Partha Banerjee
1 hour ago
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
34 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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:)
– Partha Banerjee
17 mins ago
@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♦
15 mins ago
1
Excellent answer!!
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
8 mins ago
If Bhagavan exists, He or She is also Sachchidananda:) i dont want to be sugar, i like to eat sugar:)
– Partha Banerjee
7 mins ago
add a comment |
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:)
– Partha Banerjee
17 mins ago
@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♦
15 mins ago
1
Excellent answer!!
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
8 mins ago
If Bhagavan exists, He or She is also Sachchidananda:) i dont want to be sugar, i like to eat sugar:)
– Partha Banerjee
7 mins ago
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited 27 mins ago
answered 36 mins ago
The Destroyer♦The Destroyer
19.3k792204
19.3k792204
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:)
– Partha Banerjee
17 mins ago
@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♦
15 mins ago
1
Excellent answer!!
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
8 mins ago
If Bhagavan exists, He or She is also Sachchidananda:) i dont want to be sugar, i like to eat sugar:)
– Partha Banerjee
7 mins ago
add a comment |
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:)
– Partha Banerjee
17 mins ago
@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♦
15 mins ago
1
Excellent answer!!
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
8 mins ago
If Bhagavan exists, He or She is also Sachchidananda:) i dont want to be sugar, i like to eat sugar:)
– Partha Banerjee
7 mins ago
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:)
– Partha Banerjee
17 mins ago
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:)
– Partha Banerjee
17 mins ago
@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♦
15 mins ago
@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♦
15 mins ago
1
1
Excellent answer!!
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
8 mins ago
Excellent answer!!
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
8 mins ago
If Bhagavan exists, He or She is also Sachchidananda:) i dont want to be sugar, i like to eat sugar:)
– Partha Banerjee
7 mins ago
If Bhagavan exists, He or She is also Sachchidananda:) i dont want to be sugar, i like to eat sugar:)
– Partha Banerjee
7 mins ago
add a comment |
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 C Joshi
1 hour ago
3
@PratikCJoshi Ha Ha! would i then be a writing onmsuch networks? i wd have been left everything and be absorbed in God:)
– Partha Banerjee
1 hour ago
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
34 mins ago
add a comment |
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 C Joshi
1 hour ago
3
@PratikCJoshi Ha Ha! would i then be a writing onmsuch networks? i wd have been left everything and be absorbed in God:)
– Partha Banerjee
1 hour ago
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
34 mins ago
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited 14 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Partha BanerjeePartha Banerjee
1,394119
1,394119
Did you see the God?
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
3
@PratikCJoshi Ha Ha! would i then be a writing onmsuch networks? i wd have been left everything and be absorbed in God:)
– Partha Banerjee
1 hour ago
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
34 mins ago
add a comment |
Did you see the God?
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
3
@PratikCJoshi Ha Ha! would i then be a writing onmsuch networks? i wd have been left everything and be absorbed in God:)
– Partha Banerjee
1 hour ago
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
34 mins ago
Did you see the God?
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
Did you see the God?
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
3
3
@PratikCJoshi Ha Ha! would i then be a writing onmsuch networks? i wd have been left everything and be absorbed in God:)
– Partha Banerjee
1 hour ago
@PratikCJoshi Ha Ha! would i then be a writing onmsuch networks? i wd have been left everything and be absorbed in God:)
– Partha Banerjee
1 hour ago
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
34 mins ago
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
34 mins ago
add a comment |
2
Possible duplicate of If God exists why doesn't he want to be seen?
– Surya Kanta Bose Chowdhury
1 hour ago
5
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 ?
– ram
1 hour ago
At least I can taste sugar. You can't experience God
– Pratik C Joshi
1 hour ago
Look at Vedanta Sutra 1.1.3 and 2.1.27
– Naveen Kick
1 hour ago
@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♦
1 hour ago