How can we know that God exists?

Answer Podcast:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
We know if God exists at all.
There are four broad reasons, four broad arguments used by which we can infer the existence of God. Ultimately, God is a matter of experience. It is not something which is decisively provable by logic or argumentation.
But logic and argumentation can help us seek the experience of God. So, first, argument is called as the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument means things exist around us.
So, where do things come from? So, everything that we see around us, it is temporal and it has some source. So, if I have a 100-story building and okay, this is the 100-story, this is the 99-story, this is the 98-story, like that I go down, go down, go down and if all that are there are just stories of 10 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet, this has to stop somewhere. There has to be some foundation.
Otherwise, the whole building will collapse. So, if there are just a series of temporary things, temporary things, temporary things, temporary things, they all need to have a source and that source has to be non-temporary. Even modern science has concluded that the universe is not eternal.
The universe is not eternal. It has not always been existing. It had a beginning.
And then that raises the question, where did that thing, universe, come from? So, now science, not science, atheistic science may say that it has come from a singularity. But then the question comes that where did that singularity come from? There is no answer to that again. It just exists.
So, ultimately if we see, materialism doesn’t give the answer to the ultimate question. So, now if there was just a lump of matter existing right in the beginning, matter does not organize itself. So, if on the other hand, in the beginning there is a conscious person existing, that person could use one’s intelligence to make things happen, to put fashion things in such a way that this world comes about.
So, if we look back at origin, you know, there are only two options here. Everything came from nothing or everything came from something. Everything came from nothing is completely illogical.
Because we don’t see anything coming from nothing. Everything has some source. So, if everything has not come from nothing, if everything has come from something, then what is that something? If that something were matter, it would not organize itself.
It would not produce consciousness. So, it comes from something and that something is a conscious being. So, if we think of God simply as some image in a temple or some picture, then we may think, oh, maybe who knows he existed or not.
But if we understand God as the source of everything, and everything must have a source, then we understand that God’s existence is not just a possibility. God’s existence is the necessity for the existence of everything else. The 10th chapter, 40th verse, Krishna says that because I exist, everything else exists.
Nothing could exist without me. This is the cosmological argument. The second argument is called as the teleological argument.
Teleological argument means that things have purpose. We see around us the more science has discovered this argument is a little complex, but I’ll try to simplify it as much as possible. Science has progressed because science begins with the assumption that there is order in the universe which we can understand.
So, for example, Newton saw a fruit falling. Now, millions of people before him had seen fruits falling. What they did is pick it up and ate it.
But Newton asked the question, why did this fruit fall? Now, science focuses on how intelligent he was. He found the answer of the theory of gravity. But we can go deeper and say, why did he ask the question why? That means he had a presumption that there must be answer to this why question.
So now, why is there order in the universe? And not just order, but order of mathematical precision. If I look at things from entirely an atheistic perspective, then we are all simply stardust come alive. That’s what we’ll see.
We are all stardust come alive. So, why should stardust be moving around in exactly mathematical laws? Why should stardust, which just exploded and came about, why should its motion be determined, controlled by the equation f is equal to g m1 m2 upon r square? And not only why should it be controlled in a particular way, but why should we control in a mathematical way? Because mathematics, ultimately, what is mathematics? It is just some signals, some neurochemical signals of electrochemical patterns in my brain. And if my brain has also come by chance.
So, if my brain is stardust come alive, if the universe is stardust come alive, why should the universe be orderly? And why should the order of the universe correspond with the patterns of chemicals in my brain? Are you understanding this? See, science offers explanations, but God is the explanation for explainability. God is the explanation for explainability. Why is the universe explainable at all? That is because there is a superior intelligence behind it.
Indian mathematician Srinivas Ramanujan he said, an equation for me makes no sense unless it represents a thought of God. Why should E is equal to mc square be true? Why is equal to F is equal to gm1 m2 upon r square be true? So, that is a thought of God. So, the explainability of the universe requires an explanation and that explanation is God.
The purposeful, the orderliness that we see in the universe that comprises the teleological argument for the existence of God. The third argument is called as the moral argument. The moral argument means, I indirectly pointed to that argument, that is that we all have a moral sense, that this is right and this is wrong.
Not this is right, but something is right and something is wrong. Now, what is right and what is wrong? Different people may have ideas about it. In India, people may think this is right and in America, people may think this is right.
That is okay. There may be variety in conceptions of what is right and what is wrong, but there is an underlying common denominator of rightness and wrongness. There are some things which are right and there are some things which are wrong.
Now, where does this sense of rightness and wrongness come from? Now, animals, they don’t have sense of rightness and wrongness. They simply act based on survival instinct. Now, whatever helps them to survive, they do that.
Whatever causes their death, they avoid that. Now, we humans also have that survival instinct, but we have something higher wherein for the sake of doing the right thing, we are ready to risk our survival. As I said, the example of fire fighters going into the fire, risking death for doing something which is right, for saving others.
So, if we are just biochemical bags driven by the survival instinct, why do we have a moral sense? Why do we have a sense of right and wrong? Where does it come from? That comes actually from God, who has made us as His parts and being His parts, we have a sense of right and wrong. So, our moral sense requires explanation. Albert Einstein said that we can have, we can talk about the ethical foundations of science, but we cannot talk about a scientific foundation of ethics.
Science can tell a young man who is hungry for his, who is greedy for his grandmother’s property. Now, what quantity of arsenic should I put her in her breakfast, so that I can get that property? But science cannot tell whether I should do it or I should not do it. There is some other sense, our conscience which tells us that.
So, there is a moral argument for the existence of God. And lastly is the aesthetic argument for the existence of God. The aesthetic argument means that we all have a sense of beauty.
Now, the sense of beauty, how does that if we are simply, again, biochemical bags driven by the survival instinct, why do we think of certain things as beautiful? Now, atheists may say, oh, that sense of beauty is just for copulation and reproduction. But then, we appreciate beauty even in non-sexual context. We appreciate a beautiful sunrise, we appreciate a waterfall.
How does that contribute to our survival drive, survival, struggle? Now, if a tiger sees, oh, this deer is so beautiful, the tiger will go hungry. If the deer sees, oh, this tiger is so handsome, the deer will be dead. So, actually, our sense of beauty does not contribute to our survival instinct.
And it extends far beyond our need for copulation and reproduction. It is something which comes from our deepest core. So, our whole aesthetic sense, that is something which transcends our physicality, our material existence.
So, we have an aesthetic sense because we have innate longing for God. And, in our search for beautiful things, we are ultimately searching for the supremely beautiful thing, that is God. So, our search for that which has no biological or survival necessity to it.
We all search for this, something beautiful, something meaningful. Even if it has no immediate survival value, that points to the existence of some reality which is beyond the physical. See, we have thirst and there is water.
We have hunger and there is food. We have a need for breathing and there is air. All our fundamental needs have a fulfillment.
So, we have a longing for beauty. Now, that longing is fulfilled to some extent in this world when we see beautiful objects. But the beauty of those objects is temporary.
Whereas our longing for beauty is lasting. So, where is that fulfilled? So, that is through the ultimately beautiful object, that is God. That is the aesthetic argument.
So, the cosmological argument, where does everything come from? The teleological argument, why are things so orderly? The moral argument, why do we have a sense of right and wrong? And the aesthetic argument, why do we have a sense of beauty? All these point towards an ultimate reality. And that ultimate reality we can experience by the process of Bhakti Yoga. So, Bhakti Yoga makes that which is normally God, who is normally inexperiencible, He makes him experienceable to us and that gives us the ultimate conviction.
So, if someone says, you know, I won’t do the experiment and I don’t believe in God. Well, if somebody argues like that, first I should get the experience of God, then I will believe in God. No, that doesn’t work like that.
It’s like saying that I don’t have faith in the doctor. So, first the doctor should cure me, then I will take his medicine. No doctor can do like that.
So, of course, we go first time to doctor and doctor says, I want to do open heart surgery. I say, no, no, I won’t do that. First, you show me your credentials.
If we see that the doctor provides some relief, then if we know the doctor, we develop a little trust in the doctor, then we will do some major operation. So, like that, God also doesn’t demand overnight faith. You have to believe in me.
No, we take small steps towards God and we see if that brings out the godliness within us, if that brings out our higher side, if that makes us purer and gradually, as we keep doing this, we start experiencing God more and more. So, through logical inference, we can understand that there is some higher reality and through devotional purification, we can experience that higher reality. Thank you.
We should stop here.