What is the reason you believe in God? Can you prove his existence?

I was raised by two parents with wildly different faiths, and encouraged to believe whatever made sense to me. As a result, when I was very young, while intrigued by religion and regularly observant in my mother's religion (Reform Judaism), I didn't really have much faith. When asked about God, I would generally say 'I don't know'. However, when I was 6 or 7, I had a dream. In the dream I was in my house, walking around. I walked into the bathroom, pulled aside the curtain, and looked into the bathtub, where I saw something that made me absolutely certain of the existence of God. As soon as I turned away from the bathtub, I forgot what I had seen, but retained that certainty even after waking up, which stuck with me for many years. Later my constant questioning (as encouraged by both my parents) began to encroach on that faith, and today I would describe myself as a pantheist rather than a monotheist. However, some of the faith created by that dream still remains with me.

16 Replies to “What is the reason you believe in God? Can you prove his existence?”

  1. This is the reason:

    Short Version:
    The abstract thing 'Solution' solves ALL of the problems, and is also known as God.

    Long Version (with proofs from Physics):
    The essence of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies on the whole of reality as well, where there is infinite potential and infinite energy to solve all of the problems for each and everything for maximum stability of the whole of reality. This phenomenon occurs in a process which is beyond spacetime, Gravity and all of the other things.

    In other words, (Please read this very important thing that I want to share with everyone)
    The abstract thing 'Solution' (meaning a change for a higher or equal stability) is the most fundamental thing in the whole of reality and is the whole of reality itself, with only one intent or will: to solve problems (including questions, like "What is there?").
    Since it is the most abstract, fundamental and transcendent thing, it solves all of the problems, for everyone and everything, including the problems of its own creation, sustenance and working, and is also known as God.
    Solving also includes the processes of making laws work, letting pure randomness/uncertainty produce random things and making changes (like in evolution) for higher or equal stability platforms.
    Therefore, Consciousness (the mode for solving things in us) is fundamental and not particles, time or energy. Randomness is just a partial solution to that question: "What is there?".

    Mathematics and Time are mental constructs, as evident from Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and Research by Physicists and Psychologists, who say that Consciousness is more fundamental than matter, energy, time, etc.
    The concept of Syntropy links to the Holographic Anthropic Multiverse theory, which says that human beings are central creatures in the Universe. The scriptures say that God is beyond everything, that it is in everything and that everything happens for the good, all of which are confirmed by this Solution Theory.

  2. Does God exist? How can there be so much evil and corruption in the world if God exists?
    God is a mythical word, a mumbo-jumbo word that is the invention of  the priesthood. Actually, to ask whether God exists is absurd. For those  who know, God is existence, or existence is God.
    Things exist, not God. A chair exists because a chair can go into  nonexistence. To say that the chair exists is meaningful because its  nonexistence is possible.
    God is existence, the very isness. When we say God exists we create  something out of the word God, then God becomes a thing. But God is not a  thing, nor is God a person. That is why you cannot make him responsible  for anything. Responsibility only comes when there is a personality,  when there is someone who can be responsible.
    God is not a person, he is pure existence. The word is misleading  because the word personifies. It is better to use the word existence.  The totality of existence is God.
    So it cannot be asked whether God exists. That is like asking whether  existence exists. Put this way – whether existence exists – the  question becomes absurd. Obviously existence exists; there is no  question about it. The question cannot even exist if there is no  existence, nor can the questioner.
    I would like to make it clear that when I say God, I mean existence  as such. God is not a thing among other things, God is total thingness.  To say that the table exists is the same as saying that the table is  God. To say that you exist is the same as saying that you are God. God  is the existence. God is isness, the quality of isness, the quality of  existence.
    First of all, God is not a thing. Secondly, God is not a person  because the total cannot be a person. Personality is a relationship.  Alone, totally alone, you will not be a person at all, you will be  existence itself. That is why those who are seeking the divine tend to  go into loneliness. In this way, they can cease to be persons and can  become one with existence. Aloneness, absolute aloneness, is a step  toward jumping into the abyss of existence.
    God is not a person because there is nothing opposite to him, nothing  distinct from him. God cannot say “I” because there is no other that  exists as thou. He cannot be related to anyone. He is the whole, so all  relationships exist in him and cannot exist beyond him.
    So if God is not a person, there is no question of any  responsibility. If evil exists, it exists. No one is responsible for it.  The total cannot be responsible for it.
    Responsibility implies that there is a person who can be responsible.  A child of four cannot be taken to court because he is not yet a person  and therefore cannot be held responsible for anything that he may have  done. He is so innocent that even the sense of personality, the sense of  ego, is not there. He is not responsible at all, because responsibility  comes with ego. Existence has no ego at all – God has no ego at all –  so you cannot make him responsible for any evil that exists.
    But the human mind is very cunning. First we invent a personified God  – we give God a personality – and then we make him responsible for what  happens. We go on creating problems that are not problems at all but  only linguistic fallacies. Ninety-nine percent of philosophy consists  only of linguistic fallacies. If you call the totality, existence, you  cannot make it responsible; but if you call it God, then you can make it  responsible – only the word has changed.
    Existence is non-personal, impersonal. But if God becomes a person,  then you can ask, “Why is there evil?” The whole game is being played by  you alone; God is not a party to it. When you give existence a name, a  personal name, you create problems. These problems are not authentic  problems; they are created problems, invented problems.
    God means existence. I cannot say that God exists, because that would  be a tautology. It would be just like saying: existence exists, or  poetry is poetry. It means nothing, it defines nothing, it clarifies  nothing, it explains nothing; it only repeats itself.
    To me, God is existence, and existence is impersonal. It cannot be  otherwise because the total cannot be a person. How can it be? In  contrast to whom can it be an individual, a person? In contrast to whose  ego can it create its own ego?
    You become an ego because other egos exist. Psychologists say that  the sense of ego develops in a child later than the sense of the other.  First the child becomes aware of others, then he becomes aware of  himself. The ego is a later addition.
    You cannot become aware of yourself if there is no other. Without the  other you cannot define yourself – your definition of yourself comes  from the other. Others define you; they make you separate. By knowing  others you come to feel your own boundaries. Then you know, “I am here,  and I am not there.” Then you know, “This body is mine, and that body is  not mine.” Then what is you is clearly defined – defined by other egos.  If there were no other, you would never be aware of yourself as a  person.
    God cannot become an ego. He cannot say “I” because there is no thou:  he cannot define himself. God is indefinable because a definition means  a drawing of boundaries, and the total has no boundaries at all. The  total means that which has no boundaries, the infinite.
    We cannot conceive of the infinite – whatsoever is conceivable by the  mind is finite. Even when we think about the infinite we conceive of it  as a greater finiteness, never as the infinite. We cannot conceive of a  boundaryless existence, but it is so nevertheless. Whether you can  conceive of it or not makes no difference.
    Mind cannot conceive of the indefinable, because mind requires  definitions, clear-cut boundaries. That is why God, existence, cannot be  understood by the mind.
    God is the indefinable. Because we use the pronoun he for a person,  we use he for God. But “he” is not correct, because by calling God he,  he becomes a person. Still, there is no other way. If we call God it, it  may seem better, but since we call things it, God also becomes a thing.  Our language is not meant to express the indefinable, so the best we  can do is use “he.” But he is not a person at all: he is a no-person, a  non-ego. You cannot make him responsible.
    If you say that something is bad – that there is evil or there is  want – you are saying it to no one. No reply will be given to you from  the universe, because as far as existence itself is concerned there is  no evil. Evil depends on our attitudes; it depends on our moralistic  definitions. For example, you may call someone ugly, but there is no  ugliness in existence itself because there is no beauty. The distinction  is human, it is not existential. You have made the definition: you have  defined something as beauty and something else as ugliness. You have  made the distinction and then you ask, “Why has God made ugliness?”
    There is no way to decide what is good and what is bad. If there were  no human beings on earth, would there be anything good or bad? There  would be no good and no bad because goodness and badness are human  distinctions, mental distinctions. If there were no human beings on  earth would there be any flower that was ugly or any flower that was  beautiful? There would only be flowers flowering; the distinction would  not be there.
    You say “this is evil” and “that is good.” But if, for example, Adolf  Hitler’s mother had killed him during his childhood, would it have been  good or bad? She would have been a criminal and they would have  punished her for it. But now, looking back, we can say that it would  have been a most moral act: by killing her child she could have saved  the whole world.
    No one can know the future. For us, every act is an incomplete act,  every act is a fragment. We don’t know the whole so we cannot pronounce  judgment on it.
    It is just like a page torn from a novel – how can you make any  judgment about the novel by reading just one page? You don’t know  anything about the novel. This is just a fragment – it has no beginning  or end. You will say, “I would like to read the whole story first.  Nothing can be said about it otherwise. This page is not enough.”
    Words such as good and bad are just expedient, utilitarian; they are  not existential. We cannot exist without classifying things as either  good or bad because otherwise society would be impossible.
    This must be clearly understood. Definitions are not ultimate truths,  they are relative. There is not a single act that cannot be considered  good in some context. A good deed can be bad in one context and a bad  deed may be good in another. If you are to make any final judgment you  will have to know everything from the very beginning to the very end –  everything in the whole of existence. But of course, this is impossible.
    All our statements about good and bad, beauty and ugliness are  nothing more than traffic regulations. We have to make them, but they  are not ultimate truths. “Keep left” or “keep right” – it makes no  difference. But no society can do both: either you have to keep right or  you have to keep left. The rule is utilitarian; it is neither natural  nor ultimate.
    The road is absolutely unconcerned with whether you keep to the right  or to the left, but traffic does require certain rules. When there is  less traffic you do not have to make any rules; but the more confusing  the traffic, the more rules will be needed. In a village there is no  need for traffic rules, but in a big city rules are needed.
    As society develops in a more complex way, a more clearly defined  morality is needed; otherwise you will not be able to live. But these  moralities, these conceptions of good and bad, are human expediencies.
    When you ask how there can be corruption if God exists, remember: God  is not involved at all. There are reasons for corruption, but God is  not responsible, the total is not responsible. If responsibility is to  be put anywhere, it is to be put on us. We have created a society in  which corruption has become necessary because its very base is corrupt.  Unless you change the very foundation of society there is bound to be  corruption; there has always been corruption. Forms have changed, but  the corruption has remained because we have not yet created a society in  which corruption is impossible.
    This situation is our creation; God is not involved in it at all. It  is as much a human creation as this table, this sofa, this house. You  cannot hold God responsible for this house or for this room’s being  small and not large, or for this window’s facing west and not east. You  never ask God, “Why did you build this window onto the east wall and not  the west?” That would be nonsense – you know that it is some person who  built the window into the east wall. God has never been asked about it,  he is not a party to it.
    In the same way you can ask why there is corruption, but you cannot  make any reference to God. To ask why there is corruption is a pertinent  question. But to talk about God in reference to corruption is  impertinent. Our society has been made by us – we are the architects of  it. And because the foundation of it is wrong, because the base upon  which we have built all of society’s structures is not scientific, it is  bound to be corrupt. It is a human problem. We can change it or we can  prolong it – it depends on us.
    For example, our whole education is ambition-oriented. Our whole  society is ambitious and an ambitious society can never be anything but  corrupt. If you create ambition in everyone, not everyone will be able  to fulfill it. You may say that anyone can be president, but only one  person can be president at any one time. When you teach that everyone  can be president, ambition is created: if everyone can be president then  why shouldn’t you be? But since only one person can be president, a mad  rush begins. Every means will be used – even evil means will be used.
    Ambition corrupts; the ambitious mind is bound to be corrupt.  Ambition is the seed of insanity. Yet our whole education is  ambition-oriented. Your father says, “Become someone!” and the fever is  created – you become diseased. Only one person can be president, and  thousands of people who will be unsuccessful are aflame with the same  ambition. Then you cannot be sane – you become insane. Because so much  tension is created you become corrupt: you will use any means to achieve  your goal.
    It is infectious. If you see that someone else is using corrupt means  you know that if you don’t use them you will be left behind. So you  have to use equally corrupt means. Then someone else sees you being  unscrupulous, so he has to be unscrupulous. It becomes a question of  survival. Nothing else is possible within this framework, this  structure. If you look to the very roots of society you will see that  corruption is a natural outgrowth of our conditioning, our education,  our cultivation.
    The complexity of our social structure is such that those who succeed can hide their corruption.
    Corruption is seen only when someone fails. If you succeed no one  will know that you have been corrupt; success will hide everything. You  have only to succeed and you will become a pinnacle of goodness – you  will become everything that is good, pure, innocent. That means you can  succeed in any way you like, but you must succeed. Once you succeed,  once you are successful, nothing that you may have done is wrong.
    This has been true throughout history. A person is only a thief if he  is a small thief. If he is a great thief, then he becomes an Alexander  the Great, a hero. No one ever sees that there is no qualitative  difference between the two, that it is only a quantitative difference.  No one will call Alexander the Great a great thief because the measure  of your goodness is success: the more successful you are, the more good.  Means are only questioned if you are a failure; then you will be called  both corrupt and a fool.
    If this is the attitude, how is it possible to create an uncorrupt  society? To ask a person to be moral in this immoral situation is to ask  something absurd. An individual cannot be moral in an immoral society.  If he tries to be moral, his morality will only make him egoistic and  ego is as immoral and corrupt as anything else.
    This situation is a human creation. We have created a society with a  mad rush for wealth, power, politics; we go on supporting it, and then  we ask why there is corruption. Where there is ambition, corruption will  be the logical consequence. You cannot check corruption unless the  whole basic structure that encourages ambition is destroyed.
    Ambition even becomes manifest around a so-called saint. He will  incite you to ambition in terms of comparison; he will say, “Become  better than others. Be good so that you will go to heaven and be the  beloved of the divine while others will be tortured in the fires of  hell.” The poison of ambition can easily be used in order to make a  person good.
    But that is not really possible. A person may be ambitious and bad –  that is natural, logical – but he cannot be ambitious and good. It is  impossible. If a person wants to be good, he cannot think in terms of  comparison, because the flowering of real goodness only comes when there  is no comparison.
    Comparison is the barrier because comparison creates ego, it creates  violence. The moment you say, “I am more humble than you,” you have  become violent. You have used a subtle, cunning method that thrusts a  knife into the other; you have killed him. The weapon is lethal – and  much more subtle than political or capitalist weapons. If you say, “I am  better than others, I am more saintly than others,” then the object may  be different, but you will be on the same ambitious track. Criminals  and sinners are not the only ones who are corrupt; the so-called good  people, the “saints,” are also corrupt – in a more subtle way.
    Our whole society is corrupt. It creates sinners with ambition and  saints with ambition. And they are interdependent, because both exist on  the same axis: the axis of ambition. A person who understands this will  drop out of society completely. He will be neither a sinner nor a saint  – he will not fit himself into any category – and you will be at a loss  to measure who he is, what kind of a person he is. We need a society  that is non-ambitious.
    God is not involved in it at all, but if you are ambitious, even God  will become part of your ambition. You will pursue him, you will try to  attain to God.
    A person who is ambitious is never able to attain to God. He is never  relaxed; he is never loving – because ambition is violence. And a  person who is not at ease, who is not loving, who is not silent or  peaceful, can never know what God is. God is not something that can be  known intellectually, he is something that can only be felt.
    When you are at ease, totally relaxed, going nowhere – when the mind  is still and at peace with itself – then you know what existence is.  Then you know the beauty and the bliss of existence. It is not beauty in  contrast to ugliness; there is no contrast and there is no comparison.  Rather, everything becomes beautiful – the very existence is beautiful.  Then a cactus is as beautiful as a rose. Then individuality is  beautiful; it is incomparable.
    Then for the first time you begin to love. It is not a love that  exists in contrast to hate because that kind of love can never really be  love; it is bound to be a diluted form of hate, a non-intense form of  hate. It is the opposite pole: love exists at one pole and hate exists  at the other pole, and you go on wavering between the two. Your hate  means less love. Your love means less hate.
    You may ask how one can be beyond hate and love. You can only be  beyond the duality of love and hate if you are no longer ambitious, if  you are no longer tense, if you are relaxed – going nowhere, seeking  nothing at all, just being. Then you know God and, simultaneously, you  know love. Love is a byproduct of being in tune with the infinite; it  follows just like a shadow, it is a consequence.
    Buddha never searched for love; love just came to him. Jesus never  thought about love; he lived love. The search for love cannot be direct –  it is such a subtle perfume that you cannot search for it directly. It  comes as a byproduct of the realization that everything is one, a  byproduct of comprehending that God exists in your enemy and in your  friend.
    The moment you become aware that you are not separate from existence,  from all that is, that you are a part of it – and not a mechanical part  but an organic part, just as a whale is organically joined to the ocean  and is one with it all the time, just as my hand is organically one  with me – then you can know love.
    You can become aware of it only when you are non-ambitious. Only a  non-ambitious mind is religious. It makes no difference what your  ambition is – whether it is wealth, power or fame, or even liberation or  God – if you are ambitious, that means your mind is moving somewhere  else, running after something else. It is always busy achieving; it is  never just being that which it already is.
    Ambition is tension, and tension is the barrier to encountering the  divine. Once you encounter it, you are no more – the encounter cleanses  you completely, the encounter devours you completely. Only then is there  love. The death of your ego is the birth of love.
    Ordinarily, we think of love in contrast to hate. But those who know  always think of love in contrast to ego. The real enemy of love is not  hatred – the real enemy of love is ego. In fact, hatred and love as we  know them are two aspects of the same coin.
    Love comes when you are not, when the ego is not there. And the ego  is not there, you are not, when you are not ambitious. A non-ambitious  moment is a moment of meditation. In a non-ambitious moment, when you  are seeking nothing, asking for nothing, praying for nothing; when you  are totally satisfied with what you are, not comparing yourself with  anybody else – in that moment you touch the deep reservoir of the  divine. You are not just in contact with it, you are deeply in it: you  are one with it.
    Then love flows. Then you cannot do otherwise; you can only be  loving. Then love is not the opposite of hate. There is neither love as  we have known it nor hate as we have known it; both have ceased. Now  quite a different quality of love, in a very new dimension, grows in  you.
    This love is a state of mind, not a relationship. It is not related  to anybody; it is not that you love someone; rather, it is that you are  loving. The other is not, the loved one is not, you are just loving to  whatsoever comes in contact with you. You are love; you live in love. It  has become your perfume.
    Love is there, the perfume is there, even when you are alone – like a  flower on a lonely path. No one passes, but the flower is there with  its perfume. No one is there to know, to enjoy, but the perfume goes on  silently spreading because it is not addressed to anyone. The perfume is  there because that is the manifestation of the innermost nature of the  flower. The flower is blissful, and the perfume is part of its nature.  There is no effort to spread it – it is effortless.
    When ego is not, love comes as a perfume – as a flowering of your  heart. Then it goes on spreading. It is addressed to no one, it is  absolutely unaddressed. When love is not addressed, it becomes prayer.  When it is addressed, it degenerates into sex; when it is unaddressed,  it rises to prayer.
    God or love or death are not problems to be solved – they are  experiences to be passed through.  They are not questions that can be  answered; they are quests that can either be realized or not. God cannot  be made a question at all. Whenever you ask questions about God they  are bound to be superficial. And the answers are even more superficial,  because a question that is superficial can only be answered with an even  more superficial answer.
    God is an existential quest; an inquiry, not a question. So there is  no readymade answer to the question: Does God exist? Those who give  readymade answers to the question do not know anything at all. It cannot  be said that God exists and it cannot be said that God does not exist.
    Both answers are irrelevant, because no answer can touch the real problem.
    The theologies of every religion have become superficial because they  have simply become expert in supplying readymade answers: you ask, and  the answer is supplied. But this has done a very subtle harm to the  religious spirit. These things cannot be answered like that. You cannot  ask someone, “What is love?” You cannot ask it! And if he answers, then  he is in the same boat as you – neither of you knows.
    We want answers because we are trying to escape from the suffering  entailed in the process of love, in the process that is life, existence,  God. We are riding safe vessels: we want to know so that we will not  suffer. But suffering is birth; through suffering there is ecstasy. You  have to pass through the dark night of the soul to come to the dawn. You  cannot ask what dawn is. You have to pass through the dark night to  know it.
    God is a search, not a question, and a search cannot be answered. It  has to be lived; you have to go into it deeply. You will have to be  committed to it; you will have to throw yourself into it. That is what  the fear is: throwing oneself into the unknown, the uncharted.
    You are afraid, so you sit on the bank and ask questions. And, of  course, there are always people who get pleasure out of answering you.  To answer someone is ego-fulfilling: you know and the other does not,  the other is ignorant and you are a knower. Then this mutual nonsense  goes on: someone asks and someone will answer. Both are in ignorance  because the problem cannot be solved on the bank. One has to go into  unknown waters, and you cannot go into the unknown with readymade  answers.
    Readymade answers are a barrier to the unknown. One has to go into  the unknown in total insecurity, not knowing anything. That is what is  necessary – and nothing can be done about it. To jump into the unknown  is to come upon the truth, the ecstasy. When you come upon the divine  yourself, it is not simply an answer, it is a transformation: you become  one with it.
    You can never become one with any answer; an answer always remains  separate in the memory. You can go on collecting answers and piling them  up in the mind; then you know so many answers and yet the question  remains the same – it is still not answered.
    The question cannot be answered like that. It can only be answered  through a mutation. When you encounter the divine directly, immediately –  when the divine is before you and you are before the divine with no  barrier in between – then you encounter the fire and you are  transformed. Then you become one with the divine flame: you and the  flame are not separate. Then you never ask, “What is God?” because you  are not separate. Then you never answer the question, “What is God?”  because you are not separate.
    Those who have known have remained silent. They have talked, but they  have not given any answer to the question; they have made no statement  at all. They have pointed in a certain direction, but to point is not to  make a statement, it is just a gesture. Because of the limitation of  words, of language – because of the limitations of the human mind,  questioning and answering – one can only indicate, one can only point in  a particular direction.
    God is a living encounter, not a question. And through God, love  comes. But one can only come to know God when one is not ambitious. Be  non-ambitious and you will know.
    Do not define yourself by those who are behind, because no one is  behind; or by those who are ahead, because no one is ahead. Do not  compare yourself with anybody. You are alone. Only you are like you; no  one else is like you. Just be what you are.
    That doesn’t mean not to be active. Be active, but only because of  yourself, not in comparison to others. Flower by yourself, not in  comparison to others. With this attitude, when the mind is completely  unmoving, something of the divine will lure you; you will have glimpses.
    Once you know the bliss of such glimpses, you will know the nonsense,  the absurdity, and the absolutely unnecessary misery of ambition. Then  the mind stops by itself. It becomes completely still, silent,  non-achieving. In this still moment, the jump comes. And after the jump,  there is God. After the jump, there is love – love follows like a shadow.

  3. First of all, since it all works by faith, you can’t “prove it.” After all, if you see something, you don’ t need to “believe it,” do you?

    The main thing, though is how solid the promises of God are. I walked out in faith on promises in the Bible and saw solid ground appear beneath me, so to speak.

    When my bank account was empty and I said, “God provides all that I need,” I experienced jobs, checks, cash and favors come my way to provide all I needed. For a year.

    Just one tiny example: One night my Mom, who like everybody else did not know that I had no money, asked me to take her into town to get her hair styled. I said yes and then prayed for gasoline for my car, which was empty. I waited.

    About 9:30 pm, a friend called and said, “I don’t know why, but I was watching Joyce (a lady preacher on TV) and she said to “do something good for somebody,” and right away, I thought: “I think I will call and see if Ann would like me to fill up her car with gas.” Things like that made a believer out of me!

    It is always a temptation to think, this could be a coincidence. But I lived by faith for an entire year without any money or credit, and although I felt like somebody had nailed one of my shoes to the floor (because I could not go very far!), I survived.

    It was terrifying and thrilling all at once.

    I have many, many experiences now believing God and taking Him at His word, and really don’t think I could not believe in God now, and that He is there, personally for me.

  4. Actually, 'proving validity' is not an absolute thing, only a mental construct.

    Only 'Solution' is absolute. It solves each of the issues. Each of them.
    This 'Solution' cannot be defined exactly because 'defining things' is not absolute.

    But this 'solution' can be felt in goodness, joy, delight, pleasure, humility, satisfaction, happiness, love, care, etc., i.e. the things that are the legitimate 'solutions' to our problems.

    This 'Solution' is also known as God.

    Consciousness is the mode of 'solving' in human beings, with intelligence, morality, correlation, logic, spacetime, abstraction, etc. and is therefore more fundamental than spacetime, energy and the laws of Physics that govern the Universe.


    The ontological proofs are correct and are to be ontologically analysed to be understood, rather than just logically.
    But again, they are not actually 'proofs', because 'proving things' is not absolute and is just a mental construct.

  5. The Spirit of Christ in my heart.

    But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness.”—Romans 8:10

    Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who shined in our hearts to illuminate the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not out of us.”—2 Corinthians 4:6-7

    But when it pleased God…to reveal His Son in me.”—Galatians 1:15-16

    I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.”—Galatians 2:20

    That Christ may make His home in YOUR hearts through FAITH.”—Ephesians 3:17


    ◄ Romans 10:17 ► Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

    ► 1 Corinthians 12:3 “… no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."

    ► Romans 8:14 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.

    ► Romans 8:9 “And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of His Spirit who lives in you.”

    * Only two entities know if you have faith in Jesus Christ – you and God. Your heart of hearts knows if you have faith. That is all the PROOF that I need !

  6. I believe in God because of a preponderance of evidence.  The basic tenants of Evolution insults my intelligence.  Does one build, even a simple house, with no plan…no vision?  Yet all this world that we live in, with caterpillars that turn into butterflies, and the unsearchable mechanisms of our own being, had no planner…that's evolution, and that's just plain stupid to me. 

    Can I prove His existence is akin to asking me, while standing on a plot of land with ashes smoldering, if a house burnt down.  What more could I say if you do not believe your own eyes.

  7. One thing i have noticed in human beings is that if and when they dont understand something, they just believe that a higher power is at work, i.e., god. And that also includes miracles. But, there is no concrete proof of the existence of God.
    I believe in myself. Not in God. I take responsibility for my actions, thoughts and so I'm independent of blaming anyone else other than myself. And, if the Epics have taught us anything, it is that you yourself are the creator and destroyer of the world.

  8. If I exist, you exist, then He must exist somewhere, anywhere or everywhere.

    Our sages have said– tatt tvam asi and– aham brahmasmi, meaning I am like You.

     So long as I believe in myself, how can I disbelieve Him ! I don't have any proof, but sometimes His presence, grace and even curse is felt. So I give Him a benefit of doubt.

     It is simple and safe to believe than disbelieve. As it is subtle and spiritual, science is not likely to come with an answer.

  9. I never had 'the moment' when I started believing, suddenly.
     My faith grew slowly, overtime, while counting everything that I took for granted, that had been gifted to me by virtue of a better birth but were not so for everyone.

  10. Thanks for A2A

    I have 3 friends who live together. They used to go on long drives in night together all three. One day, 1 of them came very late from job and he slept early. Other two forced him too much to go but he didn't go. So those two started their drives without him. And those two are no more now. They died in a truck accident. I believed and thought it could be mere coincidence but that 3rd guy was very gullible and had never said no to other two ever.
    And he said, he didn't go and he is alive.
    At that very moment I realized the importance of some external power, some call it god.

    1. To believe in God is not the same as thinking that God exists.
    2. I have faith in the teachings that have come to me from the scriptures. To me this is believing in God.
    3. To prove existence.
    • when there is action there is a cause.
    • when some one acts (loving his neighbor, following the Decalogue) because his gods advises to do so then that god exists. No action without a cause.
    • This is not proof that an objective God exists.
    • not many will change their behavior when they first think that God exists and then stop to think that God exists.
    • The bible advises us how to live in this world. Hardly about afterlife.
  11. I have come to believe that God is not of any consequence in my life. I realize that it is not a belief in any God, or no gods at all, that actually matters. What does matter, however, is prayer as a practice in humility. I have found that beliefs (or the lack there of) are manifestations of ego, which is what prayer is trying to reduce, and does so very effectively when I let go of judgement.

  12. When you see a car what comes in your mind, who made it, since it is a design you will not say it came by chance; similarly whole creation is such a perfect design that living beings are able to live, any fool only will tell this creation has came by chance.. For ex.It is told that the distance of earth from sun is exact not more not less, if it would have been more distance away the whole earth would have been frozen with ice, and it would have been more close the temperature would not allow humans to come into exsistance and this fact is accepted by scientists also.There are many such things where it completely prove that god has to exsist.For further discussion u can mail me at khandelwalsagar88@gmail.com ..

  13. Because nothing is a miracle and all of life's unbelievable things can finally be rested on hardwork, there has been nothing which has convinced me to start believing in God.

  14. I believe in many Gods.

    In fact I have multiple different simultaneous models of intelligence beyond our own.

    I believe in them because they have beauty and utility, which in the end is all that can be said of any mental model, religious or scientific.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *