If you maintain that physical perception alone is a valid source of knowledge, then what is the basis of your belief in God?

According to Hindu philosophy, God is not an ordinary material object that can be perceived by the senses. The Upanishads declare: “From whom words return, together with the mind, unable to reach Him.”

यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह । आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् न बिभेति कदाचन ॥ [Taittirīya Upaniṣad (also commonly numbered as 2.4.1]

The Supreme Reality transcends the mind, speech, and the senses.Therefore, God is not known merely through ordinary sensory perception, but through logical inference, scriptural testimony, and higher spiritual realization.

न सन्दृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य। [Kaṭha Upaniṣad]

“His form is not an object of visual perception.”

न तु मां शक्यसे द्रष्टुमनेनैव स्वचक्षुषा। [Bhagavad Gītā]

“You cannot behold Me with these ordinary eyes.”

My question is simple. If you say, “I believe only in physical evidence,” then how can you also say, “I believe in God”? If God has physical evidence, then present that evidence.If there is no such evidence, then either abandon your belief in God or reconsider your standard of knowledge. There is, however, a third possibility. Accept that not every truth is established through physical perception alone. That is precisely the position of the Shastras. Therefore, if you believe in God without physical evidence, then, whether you admit it or not, you are already following the very principle taught by the Shastras.

So I ask: Which part of the Shastras do you reject? Do you reject that God exists? Or do you reject that God transcends the senses? If you accept God’s existence but deny His transcendence of sensory perception, your position becomes contradictory. If you accept that God is beyond the senses, then you have already accepted a fundamental teaching of the Shastras.

I ask another question. How did your belief in God arise? Through reason? Through personal experience? Through tradition? Through intuition? If so, then why should those sources be considered trustworthy while scriptural testimony is dismissed outright? Much of human knowledge is indirect. History, science, geography, and countless events of the past are accepted through reliable testimony and reasoned inference. Why should the same principle suddenly be rejected when the subject is spiritual reality? Your position appears somewhat like this:

“I believe in the soul, but not in the texts that discuss the soul.”

“I believe in karma, but not in the doctrine of karma.”

“I believe in God, but not in the tradition that has reflected upon God for thousands of years.”

Then my question is entirely natural:

“If not from the Shastras, then how did you arrive at these ideas?”

My purpose is not to advocate blind faith.

My purpose is simply to seek consistency in thought.

If physical evidence alone is valid, then explain the basis of your belief in God.

If you admit that some realities may be known by means other than direct sensory perception, then the Shastras deserve serious reconsideration.

My own position is clear.

God exists. God transcends the senses. The Shastras teach this. I accept both God and the Shastras.

You are free to hold a different position. But let that position be clear, rational, and internally consistent. In the end, I ask only three questions:

What do you believe?

How did you come to believe it?

Why do you believe it?

---

If you believe in God without requiring physical evidence, then your theory of knowledge is already broader than mere physical empiricism. The question is not whether you should abandon reason, but whether you should consistently examine the very traditions that have systematically explored such realities for millennia.

---