God is not obligated to answer any prayers. Every person must enjoy or suffer the consequences of his or her actions from this life and from past lives. Just because prayer is not answered doesn't make it proof. There are many vedic systems of philosophy that establish the truth of God.

The first of six Vedic philosophical systems, Nyaya (logic), offers three proofs of the existence of God:

1. existence of order in nature and man (teleological argument)

It establishes intelligent design but it is not clear how many beings were involved in creating the order and if they were supreme or not.

2. existence of different conditions for different living beings (different karma of individuals must come from higher intelligence)

This argument is used for example by King Prthu in SB 4.21.27: 'My dear respectable ladies and gentlemen, according to the authoritative statements of sastra, there must be a supreme authority who is able to award the respective benefits of our present activities. Otherwise, why should there be persons who are unusually beautiful and powerful both in this life and in the life after death?'

3. existence of revealed scriptures which basically speak about the same topics and one God


In a debate concerning the question "Does God Exist?" atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on theists. This, however, is a false assertion. As philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as "Does God Exist?" is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side.

It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the theist and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The theist should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. This, however, leads to a logical bind for the atheist.

By definition, atheism is the world-view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?

The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition. The theist should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence.

This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. The library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask the following question: 'What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?' The atheist will likely respond, 'I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent.' You can then ask: 'Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?' Even if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows it.

'I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world.'

Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: 'I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have allow all those atrocities in history to happen.'

A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: 'Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?' The atheist may hedge and say: 'I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious.' Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he tells you how he knows that some things are evil. This way he is forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system.

Then point out to him that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of 'absolutely good.' If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one can judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.

At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil through His justice system (dharma-karma-samsara).

If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take such long time for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying: 'Ok. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that at this very moment, God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Practically every human being on the planet would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?'

The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available. He may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that man would avoid evil altogether. This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that he would no longer have the capacity to make choices, free will. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. Don't expect much of an answer.