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

The Buddha never said such a thing! This is simply Indian folklore.

I read the article in the link you provided above. I am unable to verify the authenticity of the story. Usually in Theravada Buddhism the Sutta's have a reference. I have not come across this story in my readings, but that's limited.

Perhaps "an" answer you seek can be found at the end of the link you provided.

Moral of the story: Belief that there is God or belief that there is no God are both equally useless, one has to realize the truth in himself with diligent self-effort. Enlightened one had told each of them what they had to know in order for them to get stronger on their spiritual quest

I wish you well on the Path.

That is the beauty of Buddhism, and the Buddha himself. He encouraged the Hindu practitioner to leave behind the baggage inherent in Hinduism (with which the Buddha was well acquainted), but encouraged the strict materialist to open his mind, and be considerate of the possibility of an afterlife and higher beings.

The Buddha taught that one of the dangers, leading to samsara, is attachment to views. One view is the view of existence; and the other is the view non-existence. One who loves existence will postulate that he is eternal, and is under the protection of an eternal god, and has an eternal destination. One who loves non-existence will postulate that he is not eternal, has no eternal god and no eternal destination. Both are inaccurate, both can lead to disputation, and most importantly, both are the result of craving what one desires. Craving what one desires leads one to infinite cycles of reincarnation, because one will never attain every desire one has in a natural lifespan.

So, save yourself some time. You don't have to spend an eon, in disputation; you don't have to whittle away a mountain with your words. Whenever a mere mortal, of merely average intelligence and merely average moral rectitude, says, "God exists" or "God does not exist", just tell yourself, "that is merely an opinion; that is merely wishful thinking."

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 & contemplatives with a doctrine & 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 & 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 & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

“Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans & 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 & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans & 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 & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

“Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans & 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! :)

In Buddhism there are deities and Brahma living in the 31 planes of existence. But unlike many other religions they are not almighty and of infinite life. They are also in the cycle of Samsana and are being transitioning from life to life and they existance in these planes are temporary. In this sense there is no God in a sense accepted in other religions but also there are higher beings who have temporal existence.

I am not sure what the TV program mentioned is accurate at least from a Theravada perspective.