Devas are Demigods( Not God), Bhagwan is God.

Nothing in vedas or upanishads denies that Indra is a god. In some places in the vedas, Indra is actually treated as the supreme God.

If one goes by only "Vedas" then Indra is a God as in Supreme one. Puranas preaches respective deity as supreme that is why they have to degrade other deities or explain about that specific deity in such a way that it'll make that deity look like supreme God comparing others. If I were you, I would only follow Vedas, just my opinion.

@TheLittleNaruto, "going only by Vedas without Itihasa/Puranas" is like "going only by class12 without going by class10". it is simply not possible to understand Vedas without first understanding Itihasa/Puranas, just as it is not possible to understand Kalidasa's Shakuntalam without first understanding Sanskrit letters and grammar. Your advice is as useful as this advice : "If I were you, I would only do Ph.D and ignore Undergrad/Masters". Not only will you not achieve Ph.D, you'll also mislead others into wasting their time.

@ram Puranas might be useful to understand Vedas, but definitely not all things written are correct. Vedas are eternal and only thing should be taken in consideration.

@TheLittleNaruto, first, 8 year olds don't learn the meaning, only the mantras. second they don't learn Vedas's meaning in isolation, they learn it along with itihasa/puranas. If you have been to a veda patashala, they have a specific curriculum every day, just like school periods of math, science etc. they first learn vedas chanting, then they learn rituals, then they learn itihasa/puranas. near the end of their schooling period, they learn upanishads. It is absolutely mandatory for them to have puranic knowledge IF they are interested in learning the meaning of Vedas.

@TheLittleNaruto, you will not find a single gurukul that teaches only meaning of 'Vedas'. Even if you happen to, those teachers could not have understood the Vedas meaning without the help of Itihasa/Puranas. So, your point is moot.

@ram For example: youtube.com/watch?v=g69RO1V_3so&feature=youtu.be He completed whole samhita at age of 5-6. How much puranas he would be knowing? Also please tell me Before Mahabharata what were people studying?

@TheLittleNaruto The idea that itihAsas/purANas are necessary to understand the meanings of the vedas, is more characteristic of the vaishnava and devotional vedAntic schools. The pUrva mImAmsakas do not place much importance on itihAsas or purANas. They are more concerned with ritualistic portions of vedas. The advaitin Adi Shankara rarely quotes itihAsas or purANas (exception being the bhagavat gItA which in its status is almost same as upanishads). With the exception of the bhagavad gIta, the brahmasutras dont touch upon itihAsas or purANas.

@Harshit What or who is god? Meaning of the word Ishvara differs contextually. God is a English word. Please clarify.

@TheLittleNaruto Also, the nighantu and nirukta, which explain vedic etymologies, do not rely on any itihAsas or purANas. Also, Adi Shankara gives a different meaning for the words itihAsa and purANa that occur in the upanishads. The words itihAsa, purANa most certainly did not mean Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavata etc in the vedic period.

@LazyLubber Please tell that to ram ji :)

@TheLittleNaruto I do not want to get into arguments for the sake of arguments.

@LazyLubber, "He completed whole samhita at age of 5-6" - Already told you, they don't learn meaning, only the chanting. Before Mahabharata, people were studying Ramayana. Before Ramayana, people studied Puranas.

@LazyLubber, there is no such thing as 'Vedic' period exclusively. Vedas & Puranas have coexisted since time immemorial. nobody here is arguing just for the sake of it. You post your opinions, others post theirs.

Similar question was answered by me (hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/35338/3869) @Harshit Gangwar

Puranas have been interpolated with added stories to downgrade Indra and Brahma and raise the status of Shiva, Vishnu or Shakti in their respective Puranas. In reality, God is Aatman and formless as per Vedas. na tasya pratima asti hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/35075/16530 "shudhama poapvidham" "He is bodyless and pure." [Yajurveda 40:8] Puranas are support to Vedas and any open for all varnas, but studying Vedas is task assigned only to Brahmins or those seeking enlightenment, realisation of Brahman, hence sages resolve conflicts of Purana commoners using knowledge of Vedas.

@Manu pratimA has multiple meanings. Idol is not the only meaning. na tasya pratimA asti - he has no likeness, he has no measure, he has no duplicate (imitation).

@LazyLubber read my answer of link, God is everywhere but a spiritually blind person in ego cant understand it just like a child of 1st class cant understand class 12th book, this is where Gyana and Bhakti splits, Vedas and Puranas are composed by same sages and for same purpose. You are making meaning of one verse, read and contemplate on entire Upanishads and Vedas and on yourself before making any definition or decision and study basic Sanskrit. Tasya means that, Asti means has."He has no image" is correct translation and not refer some Max Muller wrong translations.

these are not some metaphors, these are direct experiences of God by sages for they are worshippers of truth not any poet trying to impress people or politician.

@Manu I disagree with you. Let us just leave it at that.