Why Buddha said "There is No God" and Later "There is God"? EXPLANATION :


In many TV shows,sites I came to know that Buddha gave Different answers about God to Two Persons.

Buddha To a Ram Bhakta :
A Devotee of Lord Ram(Hindu God) was confused that God is there or Not, so he came to Buddha and asked him that "God is there or Not" .
Buddha answered : There Is No God.

AFTER SOME TIME

Buddha to Atheist
An atheist was confused that God is there or Not,so he came to Buddha and asked him that "God is there or Not"
Buddha answered : There Is A God.


QUESTION :


What was the Reason for Buddha to Give different answers to same question ?
The Buddha took a different approach to God than 'is' or 'is not':


  “This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon
  the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one
  who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom,
  there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one
  who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct
  wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world. "
  SN 12.15


In only accepting truth that is directly perceivable and verifiable,


  “Bhante, there are some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesaputta.
  They explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage,
  denigrate, deride, and denounce the doctrines of others. But then some
  other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesaputta, and they too explain
  and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, denigrate, deride,
  and denounce the doctrines of others. We are perplexed and in doubt,
  Bhante, as to which of these good ascetics speak truth and which speak
  falsehood.
  
  It is fitting for you to be perplexed, Kālāmas, fitting for you to be
  in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come,
  Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by
  hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by
  inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a
  view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or
  because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when, Kālāmas, you
  know for yourselves: ‘These things are unwholesome; these things are
  blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if
  accepted and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should
  abandon them." AN 3.65 


, as well as MN 27, one is naturally lead to DN 9.


  “There are some brahmans &amp; contemplatives with a doctrine &amp; view like
  this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from
  disease.’ I approached them and asked them, ‘Is it true that you have
  a doctrine &amp; view like this: “After death, the self is exclusively
  happy and free from disease"?’ When asked this, they replied, ‘Yes.’
  So I asked them, ‘But do you dwell having known or seen an exclusively
  happy world?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But
  have you ever been aware of a self exclusively happy for a day or a
  night, or for half a day or half a night?’ When asked this, they said,
  ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But do you know that “This is the path, this
  is the practice for the realization of an exclusively happy world"?’
  When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But have you heard
  the voices of devas reborn in an exclusively happy world, saying,
  “Practice well, my dears. Practice straightforwardly, my dears, for
  the realization of an exclusively happy world, because it was through
  such a practice that we ourselves have been reborn in an exclusively
  happy world"?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’
  
  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of those brahmans &amp; contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”
  
  “Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &amp;
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”
  
  “Potthapada, it’s as if a man were to say, ‘I’m in love with the most
  beautiful woman in this country,’ and other people were to say to him,
  ‘Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with
  whom you are in love: do you know if she’s of the warrior caste, the
  priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?’ and, when
  asked this, he would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘Well
  then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she’s tall, short, or
  of medium height? Whether she’s dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you
  know what village or town or city she’s from?’ When asked this, he
  would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you’ve never known or
  seen the woman you’re in love with?’ When asked this, he would say,
  ‘Yes.’
  
  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?”
  
  “Yes, lord … ”
  
  “In the same way, there are some brahmans &amp; contemplatives with a
  doctrine &amp; view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans &amp;
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”
  
  “Yes, lord … ”
  
  “ Potthapada , it’s as if a man at a crossroads were to build a
  staircase for ascending to a palace, and other people were to say to
  him, ‘Well, my good man, this palace for which you are building a
  staircase: do you know whether it’s east, west, north, or south of
  here? Whether it’s high, low, or in between?’ and, when asked this, he
  would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you don’t know or see
  the palace for which you are building a staircase?’ When asked this,
  he would say, ‘Yes.’
  
  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?”
  
  “Yes, lord … ”
  
  “In the same way, there are some brahmans &amp; contemplatives with a
  doctrine &amp; view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans &amp;
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”
  
  “Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &amp;
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”


As the Buddha stated in his first sermon,


  “Bhikkhus, these two extremes should not be followed by one who has
  gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of sensual
  happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of
  worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of
  self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without
  veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened
  to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to
  knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to
  enlightenment, to Nibbāna." SN 56.11


All speculative views are abandoned in DN 1. MN 74 gives one analysis of why Nihilism, the strong atheist's statement 'there is no God', is flawed.

DN 15 is likely approximately what he taught, and MN 118 and MN 10 is likely what he would have practiced..

Some Hindu societies accepted Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, which may mix his statements quite a lot.. in fact, a lot of his supposed quotes on the net, are not his quotes. Best to stick to the Pali canon and some later writings for what he says imo! :)