Bhakti Caitanya Swami cited the creation of the intelligent human being as evidence for the existence of god.
He said that something so complex and intelligent must have a creator.
I was wondering if you can give another practical example of proof that God exists.
Let’s begin by saying that there is no proof that God *does not exist*. Nor it will never be possible to gather acceptable evidences to prove it.
Therefore in a debate with an atheist we start off the same base. We both have the same burden of proving our statements.
According to Vedic wisdom there are three types of evidences:
In his introduction of the Sri Isopanisad, Srila Prabhupada writes:
“Pratyaksa means “direct evidence.”
Direct evidence is not very good because our senses are not perfect. We are seeing the sun daily, and it appears to us just like a small disc, but it is actually far, far larger than many planets. Of what value is this seeing? Therefore we have to read books; then we can understand about the sun. So direct experience is not perfect.”
So we can’t give evidence of the existence of God utilizing our senses because they are too limited.
Then we have anumana, or inductive knowledge, something infered by experience or reasoning. It’s hipothesys. God may exist, God may not exist. Anumana also is not very reliable since it depends on limited knowledge and capacity of calculation of our brains.
Then we have sabda (or sabda-pramana), which is knowledge coming from a divine source.
If we don’t know who our father is, best authority is our mother. Sabda is the mother of knowledge.
However we don’t say that pratyaksa and anumana can’t give any help. They are limited but can be used to gather some level of knowledge in order to access superior level of understanding.
For instance through anumana we can easily determine that God exists because He “cannot not exists”.
There are no plausible explanations to creation other that an origin compatible with its qualities. In other words, if the creation is intelligent, its creator must be intelligent. If the creation is beautiful, it’s creator must be beautiful. And so on and so forth.
The explanation of randomness can’t be proved.
So not only we derive knowledge of His existence but also what type of origin he is, just like we can understand at least some aspect of the heart of a artist by watching his song or his painting. If we hear a song surely we think that the musician is a person because a inert lump of matter cannot produce music.
I am a man, therefore my father and mother can’t be birds or any other living being. They must be human being. There is no randomness. From a human mother and father always came and always will come another human being.
If you see a building you know that it required people making it. Not some kind of “big bang” but intelligent and conscious work.
Any other conclusion would be unacceptable.
So an effect speaks about its cause.
But Sabda, divine revelation, is the best path to knowledge. Those who come to the point of accepting the three sources (Guru, Sastra and Sadhu) of perfect knowledge are very fortunate.
But should we accept them by blind faith? No, but this is topic for another discussion.
there is much more to say about being able to give evidences on God’s existence but I’ll leave this also for a future deeper essay.
Manonatha Dasa (ACBSP)
Bookstore and Blog: www.isvara.org