Does God exist?

[Jeff]

My last paper in my Intro to Philosophy class to write in an essay answer was "Does God exist?" Here is my argument; I hope you guys can respond to mine and come up with arguments of your own.

For thousands of years, many different civilizations, from Mesopotamia to the present, have worshipped many Gods. From the Eastern viewpoint on the ultimate, incomprehensible Brahman to the western monotheistic religions of Abraham, God has oftentimes been the focus of practically all civilizations. The ways all of the religions use God oftentimes depend on the civilization and their view on life, such as the pessimistic religions of Mesopotamia compared to that of the more optimistic views shared by religions like Christianity and Islam. In this essay, by examining both Eastern and Western religions and their similarities, I will demonstrate that God indeed does exist based off the Platonic viewpoint that all people are inherently born good [1], and despite the differences between the philosophies, they all are inherently the same way toward reaching the same goal—reaching the universal idea of the perfect form of Good-- God.

In Hinduism, the oldest surviving religion in human history [2], one can gather several qualities, when comparing these qualities to the West, that indicates that all people are inherently born good—and that God indeed must exist based off the fact that if people are inherently born good, then there must be a perfect form of the ideal good—God. With this context, in the Hindu tradition, which is a good representation of other basic Asian viewpoints, there is an infinite, incomprehensible being, Brahman. Based off of a flaw in this incomprehensible being that our own minds cannot even fathom, the universe as we know it exists. We are all held to the universe by our actions, which is our karma. By eliminating negative karma and having more positive karma, one can ultimately reach God-liberation, or moksha—liberation from the imperfect universe. During the process of trying to reach moksha, one “unconsciously tries to reach his Divine Self—which is infinite bliss.” [3] This concept concludes that once one reaches moksha, they again become a part of God; man forever strives to again become a part of God. Everything on Earth, essentially, whether it be trees, people, or the enormous pantheon of Gods that Hinduism gives, is a manifestation of the ultimate Brahman on Earth.

In the Bhagavad Gita, one of the more popular Hindu scriptures, Krishna, a divine incarnation of Brahman on Earth, appears to Arjuna, a warrior, in the heat of battle. Krishna tells Arjuna about the incomprehensible nature of the ultimate Brahman on Earth. He tells Arjuna that he is “the beginning and the middle and the end of all that is. Of all knowledge I am the knowledge of the Soul. Of the many paths of reason I am the one that leads to truth” (10:32). This merely outlines the incomprehensibility and vastness of the spirit. Considering that such a spirit exists in accordance with Eastern Philosophy, how can one reach perfect Harmony? The answer rests in the universal concept of “love”. Krishna highlights to Arjuna the solace that “only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me” (11:54). In this respect, one can argue that love is a good emotion, and in order to reach the perfect God, the perfect form of a good quality ‘love’, one first has to love. Considering God is benevolent, all powerful, and all good, and considering that the argument consists that we all come from God, it makes sense to say that God indeed does exist based off the fact that the ultimate, all good spirit gave mankind “love”—the ultimate form of good, and only by love can we truly realize its existence.

Furthermore, with the basis of Eastern Philosophy and its version of God intact, one can now examine the more monotheistic version of God has exhibited by the Western religions of Abraham. There has been a considerable amount of controversy surrounding the monotheistic traditions of the West, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but ultimately all three, despite a few considerable differences in theology, share the same God. The religions of Abraham reject the notion of multiple gods, instead arguing on the basis that there is only one, true, absolute God. The First Commandment proclaims to the Jews that “I am the Lord thou God, and thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” Muhammad, similarly, in the Qur’an, tells the peoples that “there is no other God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” With the question of the existence of God in mind, one must ascertain the significance of the one God, Yahweh, Allah, whatever one chooses to call him. Unlike the Eastern traditions, which relates toward Harmony, the West sees the universe as a realm of duality—conflicting forces between good and evil. God, as aforementioned, is the ultimate form of good, and questions have oftentimes arisen between theologians on what evil is. St. Augustine argues that “evil is not a real feature of reality, but as a lack, an incompleteness, a privation.” [4] Augustine argues that “for God, there is no past or future, only an eternal present.” [5] This sounds remotely similar to the argument Krishna gave in that the ultimate Brahman is the beginning and the middle and the end of all things. God therefore, according to Augustine, still is all good, incomprehensible, and everlasting.

With the question of the everlasting permanence of the Goodness of God having been addressed, one now has to address how people in the religions of Abraham reach God. In essence, the way of doing so strongly resembles that of the Eastern traditions. In the Christian point of view, Christ tells Nicodemus that “For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God, again the ultimate form of love, sacrificed his only Son so that mankind could be saved. In return, all it takes is for people to accept the Gift of Christ so that all of their sins can be cleansed. Islam and Judaism share a similar belief, although slightly different, in that good actions and a heart dedicated to the one God can help cleanse sin. Again, by showing love and devotion to God in whatever way, one again takes the ultimate form of the best gift imaginable, love, and through love, they become one with God. Individuality has more importance in the West in that each person has a soul, but even in the monotheistic point of view, in Heaven, despite still having individuality and not being a “part” of God, one still will most likely lose all sense of individuality in that nothing matters except for God, the ultimate goodness, and his love. What will matter is that for these faiths, all believers will join together in a collective to worship God in his ever-lasting goodness. Based off this perspective as compared to Eastern religions, I find it conclusive to believe in the Platonic view that all people are inherently born good. Considering the vast differences in Eastern and Western religion, both cultures’ views on God still indicate that in order to reach an all-Good God, one has to take the perfect form of goodness, love. By doing this, one can in turn discover the perfect form of Love, God.

Skepticism invites questioning, and one can certainly question whether God does exist. One can argue that there is no perfect form; only Science governs the Universe. In this arena, I really cannot give an answer to the questions, but it does not necessarily mean that this argument has been defeated or is illogical. Consider the famous proof that indicates that God exists and no one can prove it wrong—the ontological argument by St. Anselm. Anselm admitted that he believed in God, and then he gave the famous argument to

“Conceive in your mind the most perfect being you can think of. Now ask yourself, does the entity you conceived exist only in your mind? If it is even possible that it exists only there, then is it not the most perfect entity conceivable because such an entity that existed both in your mind and extra mentally would be even more perfect. Therefore, if it is even possible even to conceive of a most perfect being, such a being necessarily exists.” [6]

The problem with this argument is that it is tautology—the proof of it depends on the presumption—the argument depends on itself. [7] Skeptics point out the philosophical crime of tautology, but they also prescribe that Anselm had a bias in that he already believed in God before creating the argument; therefore, he must have some type of agenda. I too have a belief in the Christian viewpoint on God—despite my own skepticism at times, I can see Good everyday in life, and like Augustine, I can see evil as being the absence of Good. Therefore, I have my own bias, but I have seen proof of God’s existence based on the seemingly impossible happening at times in personal situations. I have also seen Evil, the absence of Good, in many situations. Therefore, with my belief, I do believe that God exists.

God exists! According to Plato, all people are inherently born good. In the Eastern religions, all things on Earth are part of the incomprehensible, everlasting, all good Brahman, and in order to once again become a part of that original flaw, one must accept the perfect form of good, love, and in turn they will return to God. This same universal concept applies to the Western religions; God is good, and through his love one can reach him. Evil merely consists in the absence of Good in certain situations according to Augustine, so since all people have goodness, God is the ultimate form of it. Ultimately, I have beliefs in God, and I have bias. Despite whatever view on God one may take, or whichever religion ultimately may have it right, Krishna from the Bhagavad-Gita alliterates that love indeed is God best when he says that “even those who in faith worship other gods, because of their love they worship me” (9:23). Because such a good thing as love exists, God in turn therefore must exist.

[1] Class Notes: 09/19/07

[2] Bhaskarananda, Swami. The Essentials of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Overview of the World’s Oldest Religion. Viveka Press, Seattle. Pg. 1

[3] Hinduism: 8

[4] Palmer, Donald. “Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter” 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill, 2006. 108

[5] Looking: 111

[6] Looking at Philosophy: 119

[7] Class Notes: 12/02/07

[Kaffee]

Do I believe that God exists? Can I as a human being turn over a stone and find him there? I've asked myself that question a thousand times. I remember the first time that I was made to go to church. I was about 5 years old, and I said that I was made cause I would have rather done anything else at the time. Now I'm not going to say that I remember everything exactly about that moment in my life, after all it was about 32 years ago. I've built my faith in God above on my own, with my own way or style of believeing in him. I've been told that my way of believeing is wrong and that I need atonement. I still pray to him, I still ask him for help. When my brother was sick I prayed everyday for God to save him. My brother made it out of two major brain surgeries, and my family has thanked God repeatedly.

If you're asking if me if I think he exist then the answer is yes I do. Does the rest of the world? To be honest, I really don't care. I think he exist to help me and my family though troubling times. I even get angry at him sometimes when things go wrong in my life. I don't think that he only helps me and my family either, I'm not that arrogant. I know that he helps all kinds of people, even when they don't ask for it.

You wrote a good paper, and yeah, I believe God exists.

[Cherubim1324]

Everyone outside of agnostics and atheists believes that God, a god, gods, or some higher power/supreme being exists. HOW we define such a thing/creature/person/being is where most of us part ways.

[:Venom:]

Would it be incorrect to say that being an atheist is almost unheard of? Is it not that an atheist believes that no God exists? Is it merely spiritual God, or God in general? When there is nothing to "worship", per say, there are other things to turn to. Depending on your view of what "God" is... I do think that everyone believes in something in this matter. Whether is be their video games, or their girlfriend/boyfriend... It's something that they view as higher. Would that be an incorrect statement if I made it?

[The Deity]

Would it be incorrect to say that being an atheist is almost unheard of? Is it not that an atheist believes that no God exists? Is it merely spiritual God, or God in general? When there is nothing to "worship", per say, there are other things to turn to. Depending on your view of what "God" is... I do think that everyone believes in something in this matter. Whether is be their video games, or their girlfriend/boyfriend... It's something that they view as higher. Would that be an incorrect statement if I made it?

I understand where you are going with this, but if you use this logic, anything you respect or anything that has significance in your life is your god. While I respect my journalism professor and I've turned to him for advice in college, he's not my god.

[Gamerlen]

Well, I'm agnostic (I used to say atheist, but that was mostly because I was really irritated at the Christian Church at the time).

I guess the way I see it is that its certainly possible for there to be a god (or gods) but I also sincerely doubt that humanity will ever find out what he (she? it? they?) is.

Do I believe in the Christian God? Not really. I've read enough of the Bible to know that most of His self proclaimed priests and preachers will break commandments and go against what the Bible says is good and just for reasons ranging from money to sexual desire. Either that god has stopped paying attention, or was never paying attention in the first place. Of course thats assuming that this particular Deity was real (or just doesn't, as many say, let them die and then sort it out "Let God sort 'em out!")

If it were me Pat Robertson would be a pile of lightning bolted ashes by now... >.>

As for the Muslum Allah, I don't know enough about the Quoran and the Muslum beliefs to make a valid argument on this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of his priests exploit their followers as much as Christian ones.

"Give to JU-HE-SU-SAH and ye will be saved! Give to the LAWD of yer wallets and of yer bank accounts and he will rescue ye from the fires of HELLUAH!"

"Strike down the infedels and sacrafice yourself for Allah, and you will be greeted in heaven by seventy one dark haired virgins."

Different stakes, same deal. Give us your money/property/life and when you die you will be rewarded. Thats kind of the catch 22 of all religions, you never know 100% if they're true or not until you're dead and gone. All religions have focused on death and what comes after since the beginning of mankind. The River Styx and Hades, the River Duat from Egyptian myth, Heaven and Hell, Valhallah, all of 'em. It plays on mankind's fear of death and the unknown. But now I'm just rambling.

Personally, I'm willing to believe in a God/Goddess/or whatever, but not one tied to most any religion. I guess I'm not alone in this since some people have become so disillusioned by the older religions that they'll join cults, wear black makeup and claim to be vampires, or go join Scientology (which in my opinion is the most dubious one out there, having a lot of its faith baised on a science fiction novel from the fifties. Check Wiki! Its wacky! =P ). But after watching the churches of our country telling us how to behave, how to act, who to love, who to hate, and what to do with pretty much every aspect of our lives... I'd rather just stay out of it.

[The Deity]

Do I believe in the Christian God? Not really. I've read enough of the Bible to know that most of His self proclaimed priests and preachers will break commandments and go against what the Bible says is good and just for reasons ranging from money to sexual desire.

Well if you read a little further in the book, you'd learn that everyone sins and there certainly are evil people in the world. You cut-and-runner you

If it were me Pat Robertson would be a pile of lightning bolted ashes by now... >.>

That's good, kill a man for standing up for his faith. Statements like that are as bad or worse that any anti-...well anti-you person could say. Good to know you hate bigotry but you vaporize people that have differing opinions from yours :)

As for the Muslum Allah, I don't know enough about the Quoran and the Muslum beliefs to make a valid argument on this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of his priests exploit their followers as much as Christian ones.

So a religion can be remedied false if any of its followers are ever in error? Good. Now I understand why your upcoming Gods and Godesses have not proclaimed their existence yet. If their followers screw up and then they'd be false!


"Give to JU-HE-SU-SAH and ye will be saved! Give to the LAWD of yer wallets and of yer bank accounts and he will rescue ye from the fires of HELLUAH!"

Right, because that money goes right into God's pocket, not to say charities or anything like that.

Different stakes, same deal. Give us your money/property/life and when you die you will be rewarded. Thats kind of the catch 22 of all religions, you never know 100% if they're true or not until you're dead and gone. All religions have focused on death and what comes after since the beginning of mankind. The River Styx and Hades, the River Duat from Egyptian myth, Heaven and Hell, Valhallah, all of 'em. It plays on mankind's fear of death and the unknown. But now I'm just rambling.

Uh, faith and religion kind of go hand-in-hand. If you're not willing to believe in something, why follow it?

Personally, I'm willing to believe in a God/Goddess/or whatever, but not one tied to most any religion.

Right, they're just waiting to let themselves be known.

[Cherubim1324]

Would it be incorrect to say that being an atheist is almost unheard of? Is it not that an atheist believes that no God exists? Is it merely spiritual God, or God in general? When there is nothing to "worship", per say, there are other things to turn to. Depending on your view of what "God" is... I do think that everyone believes in something in this matter. Whether is be their video games, or their girlfriend/boyfriend... It's something that they view as higher. Would that be an incorrect statement if I made it?

An atheist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist) is someone who does not believe that God, a god, or any kind of higher power/supreme being exists (let alone believe in one). They do not believe in any religion as we know them, nor do they believe in Christianity. They do not believe Satan, Heaven, Hell, angels, demons, deities, or devine beings exist. They do not even believe in the spiritual.
Basically, they believe in what is tangible (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible); they believe in what they can see, touch, taste, smell, feel, hear...they simply believe in the physical. Theoretically speaking, they are (or would be) the perfect scientists.
Also (for those wondering), an agnostic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic) (in this case) is someone who believes it is possible that the things I mentioned above exist, but that it is impossible to know if they truly do.

I understand where you are going with this, but if you use this logic, anything you respect or anything that has significance in your life is your god. While I respect my journalism professor and I've turned to him for advice in college, he's not my god.

"HI-OH! You are CORRECT, sir!"

[:Venom:]

Hm, that does make sense. Though... Has it not been seen that an atheist does find joy in something else, keeping that the main focus in life? Putting all trust and power into this one item/feeling? I mean, for sure, my friend is an atheist. Though, they give everything they have into this one thing. Nothing stands in the way of it. Putting an impression that it is higher. I mean, is it near impossible to NOT have faith in something, whether it be a physical or a spiritual god? This is something I do not understand.

I believe in God, indeed. Messianic Jew completely, although, it's the whole idea of faith that comes in for whether God can be true or not. Is this not correct? God would not exist if there was not faith to begin with.

I don't think it's about a respect really... I respect a lot of things to the greatest extent, but they aren't my God. I don't put faith in them, nor do I fall back on them. They are merely physical items that will vanish once I'm dead. Though, in others eyes, this is a god to them.

I guess God to you (whoever) is something you put completel faith, trust, love, and power to. It's the one with the infinite power to you. Therefore, God must exist, just in different forms to different people.

[Chicken Little]

Hm, that does make sense. Though... Has it not been seen that an atheist does find joy in something else, keeping that the main focus in life? Putting all trust and power into this one item/feeling? I mean, for sure, my friend is an atheist. Though, they give everything they have into this one thing. Nothing stands in the way of it. Putting an impression that it is higher. I mean, is it near impossible to NOT have faith in something, whether it be a physical or a spiritual god? This is something I do not understand.

Joy and belief are mutually exclusive in this context as the question isn't if believing in a higher power brings greater joy than those who do not but the legitimacy of the existence of such myths. As for the plausibility of having faith in something, it is very possible to not have faith however it is impossible to not have a belief (joking aside) atheists do not have faith in anything yet they believe that god is false, if they did not believe than they would be entirely moot since they would not have an opinion on the matter.

On this matter, I must admit it's late so I didn't read the entirety of the essay. However, the inherent belief that all creatures are born good is an assumption, newborns have been the cause of death to the parents so in this regard even before birth the child has done harm by simply existing, it would not know it but it would be the cause and catalyst. In this regard the assumption that all things are created good is false since the no one made a decision to do harm. Would this be a freak of nature, or Krishna playing funny buggers which would still go against the greater good notion?

Anywho, is there a god(s), short form the answer is yes since man has made a god whether people agree with it or not. Slightly elaborated in that the proportions of religions shows that more people believe in a god than those that do not, history is shaped around what those of faith did and how they did it and to this day we still have division and multiple deities, religious holidays and god is as much a part of society now as it ever was. Whether those of us who disagree with the existence of such beings believe is what varies.

For good to exist there must be evil. The two can coexist in man yet as greater powers they cannot and must be divided. Man was created in gods image. Is man therefore greater than god because s/he can house both good and evil while God cannot?

That is the question which people should be asking, not whether god exists or which religion is the true religion, but whether, since these were written by men, whether we created reasoning for ourselves to justify what we are, much like the Egyptians, Greek, Romans, Norse and early Christians sculptured god in explanation of events and occurrences.

[Dark Marmosett]

Everyone outside of agnostics and atheists believes that God, a god, gods, or some higher power/supreme being exists. HOW we define such a thing/creature/person/being is where most of us part ways.
Cherubim pretty much summed up everything I was going to say.

Everyone that has a religion does believe in God(s) one way or another. So really there must be some kind of super powered allmighty being(s) that created, gave life and all that.

[Sassafrass Raistimass]

...that all people are inherently born good—and that God indeed must exist based off the fact that if people are inherently born good, then there must be a perfect form of the ideal good—GodFlaw: that is not fact, nor is it logic. At most you could say that because we define people as good then we must base that on an ideal "good," but even that is speculative, doesn't have to be "God," and doesn't even have to exist, being "ideal" and all.

Sorry, I didn't have time to read past that paragraph, so if that sentence was just a bad representation of the argument itself then feel free to feed me another quote from it.

Everyone outside of agnostics and atheists believes that God, a god, gods, or some higher power/supreme being exists. HOW we define such a thing/creature/person/being is where most of us part ways.Agnosticism does not preclude belief in a deity. "Agnostic" is a pretty useless term in general when trying to define faith, really.

That's good, kill a man for standing up for his faith. Statements like that are as bad or worse that any anti-...well anti-you person could say. Good to know you hate bigotry but you vaporize people that have differing opinions from yoursIf you think Robertson "stands up for his faith," then I don't think you know him as well as you think you do.

Right, because that money goes right into God's pocket, not to say charities or anything like that.Or it's used to buy support from some of the most brutal dictators in the world (including Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire and Charles Taylor of Liberia) for various gold- and diamond-mining operations.

I'm not saying I like Len's attempt to disprove religions by pointing at choice examples of its followers any more than you do, but let's not try and defend people who continually prove themselves to be indefensible. Pat Robertson is one of the most soulless fucking beings in America today, and I fucking mean that.

Everyone that has a religion does believe in God(s) one way or another. So really there must be some kind of super powered allmighty being(s) that created, gave life and all that....huh? Belief in a deity does not necessitate the existence of one.

[Jeff]

Flaw: that is not fact, nor is it logic. At most you could say that because we define people as good then we must base that on an ideal "good," but even that is speculative, doesn't have to be "God," and doesn't even have to exist, being "ideal" and all.

Sorry, I didn't have time to read past that paragraph, so if that sentence was just a bad representation of the argument itself then feel free to feed me another quote from it

Keep reading. The argument gets more complex. I gain a theme of love being the perfect form of Good, and God is love. It takes the paper a little while to develop.

As for the Muslum Allah, I don't know enough about the Quoran and the Muslum beliefs to make a valid argument on this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of his priests exploit their followers as much as Christian ones.

Of course; Fundamentalist Islam as we know today, which certainly isn't a good representation of the true religion and its good parts.

it would not know it but it would be the cause and catalyst. In this regard the assumption that all things are created good is false since the no one made a decision to do harm. Would this be a freak of nature, or Krishna playing funny buggers which would still go against the greater good notion?

Not really--considering in Hinduism this can just be interpreted as bad karma on the mother's part from previous lives. The child has nothing to do with it. Bad karma on the child's part is the child dying at childbirth--working out the incredibly bad karma of the previous life. Of course, as I illustrated by Hinduism in the paper, all people being born good ultimately strive toward good--in Hinduism's case, the ultimate Brahman. By unconsciously striving toward the good and eliminating the bad karma, they can achieve moksha, God-Realization. According to Plato, the people who just make an attempt to do bad are deemed in the category "ackrazia"--which you can derive which our own English word comes from. I hope I'm making sense here.

[Chicken Little]

Not really--considering in Hinduism this can just be interpreted as bad karma on the mother's part from previous lives. The child has nothing to do with it. Bad karma on the child's part is the child dying at childbirth--working out the incredibly bad karma of the previous life. Of course, as I illustrated by Hinduism in the paper, all people being born good ultimately strive toward good--in Hinduism's case, the ultimate Brahman. By unconsciously striving toward the good and eliminating the bad karma, they can achieve moksha, God-Realization. According to Plato, the people who just make an attempt to do bad are deemed in the category "ackrazia"--which you can derive which our own English word comes from. I hope I'm making sense here.

Bad karma would need to carry over during consequent births which would still impact the "people are born good" concept, for people t be born good it cannot be just a relative concept where only during death at birth is bad karma accepted as a truth but during all births and all death at births. It is a problem inherently in most religions in that by some means one can "wash away" their karma yet only certain denominations can do this and only certain ways. To interpret that the mother had bad karma from a past life as a reasoning for her death during a birth is to interpret that she had a negative karma rebirth and thus was not born good during that rebirth.

Also considering the importance of religion back then you would assume that most if not all would have been of the Hindu faith, so there would be a contradiction in terminology if one who has been reborn into the world was reborn with bad karma and the belief that all are born inherently good. Which I believe wasn't touched on from what I read.

[Tirk Renard]

When trying to read papers of these lengths my ADD usually kicks in, so I'll try taking it bit by bit. Comments will be in blue <3

For thousands of years, many different civilizations, from Mesopotamia to the present, have worshipped many Gods. From the Eastern viewpoint on the ultimate, incomprehensible Brahman to the western monotheistic religions of Abraham, God has oftentimes been the focus of practically all civilizations. The ways all of the religions use God oftentimes depend on the civilization and their view on life, such as the pessimistic religions of Mesopotamia compared to that of the more optimistic views shared by religions like Christianity and Islam. In this essay, by examining both Eastern and Western religions and their similarities, I will demonstrate that God indeed does exist based off the Platonic viewpoint that all people are inherently born good [1], and despite the differences between the philosophies, they all are inherently the same way toward reaching the same goal—reaching the universal idea of the perfect form of Good-- God.

Good--god.. Maybe you should add something in here about what your definition for 'god' is. My thoughts were that a god is an omnipotent being, pure and perfect. But you seem to be going on more so about the social tendencies of humans, the belief that humans alone are good but in a group are bad.

In Hinduism, the oldest surviving religion in human history [2], one can gather several qualities, when comparing these qualities to the West, that indicates that all people are inherently born good—and that God indeed must exist based off the fact that if people are inherently born good, then there must be a perfect form of the ideal good—God. With this context, in the Hindu tradition, which is a good representation of other basic Asian viewpoints, there is an infinite, incomprehensible being, Brahman. Based off of a flaw in this incomprehensible being that our own minds cannot even fathom, the universe as we know it exists. We are all held to the universe by our actions, which is our karma. By eliminating negative karma and having more positive karma, one can ultimately reach God-liberation, or moksha—liberation from the imperfect universe. During the process of trying to reach moksha, one “unconsciously tries to reach his Divine Self—which is infinite bliss.” [3] This concept concludes that once one reaches moksha, they again become a part of God; man forever strives to again become a part of God. Everything on Earth, essentially, whether it be trees, people, or the enormous pantheon of Gods that Hinduism gives, is a manifestation of the ultimate Brahman on Earth.

Well now, you throw around the word 'good', but who is to define good? There are things that we all know are wrong, but others are defined by morels. Mine can vary much from even my closest friends, while I might find something that he does wrong, it could be completely right in his head. If people are trying to eliminate the 'bad' what set of rules are they following for discerning good from bad?

In the Bhagavad Gita, one of the more popular Hindu scriptures, Krishna, a divine incarnation of Brahman on Earth, appears to Arjuna, a warrior, in the heat of battle. Krishna tells Arjuna about the incomprehensible nature of the ultimate Brahman on Earth. He tells Arjuna that he is “the beginning and the middle and the end of all that is. Of all knowledge I am the knowledge of the Soul. Of the many paths of reason I am the one that leads to truth” (10:32). This merely outlines the incomprehensibility and vastness of the spirit. Considering that such a spirit exists in accordance with Eastern Philosophy, how can one reach perfect Harmony? The answer rests in the universal concept of “love”. Krishna highlights to Arjuna the solace that “only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me” (11:54). In this respect, one can argue that love is a good emotion, and in order to reach the perfect God, the perfect form of a good quality ‘love’, one first has to love. Considering God is benevolent, all powerful, and all good, and considering that the argument consists that we all come from God, it makes sense to say that God indeed does exist based off the fact that the ultimate, all good spirit gave mankind “love”—the ultimate form of good, and only by love can we truly realize its existence.

As stated by one pop artist "What is love? Oh baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more.." XD Hm, this kinda supports the idea of the mate of a person completes them. In such that they cant be 'perfect' or 'whole' without their significant other. Which is something that bothers me about the Christian faith, who says that other must be of the opposite sex? I honestly hold love as one of the most important things to me in life. Up there with my family, myself, and my friends.

Furthermore, with the basis of Eastern Philosophy and its version of God intact, one can now examine the more monotheistic version of God has exhibited by the Western religions of Abraham. There has been a considerable amount of controversy surrounding the monotheistic traditions of the West, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but ultimately all three, despite a few considerable differences in theology, share the same God. The religions of Abraham reject the notion of multiple gods, instead arguing on the basis that there is only one, true, absolute God. The First Commandment proclaims to the Jews that “I am the Lord thou God, and thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” Muhammad, similarly, in the Qur’an, tells the peoples that “there is no other God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” With the question of the existence of God in mind, one must ascertain the significance of the one God, Yahweh, Allah, whatever one chooses to call him. Unlike the Eastern traditions, which relates toward Harmony, the West sees the universe as a realm of duality—conflicting forces between good and evil. God, as aforementioned, is the ultimate form of good, and questions have oftentimes arisen between theologians on what evil is. St. Augustine argues that “evil is not a real feature of reality, but as a lack, an incompleteness, a privation.” [4] Augustine argues that “for God, there is no past or future, only an eternal present.” [5] This sounds remotely similar to the argument Krishna gave in that the ultimate Brahman is the beginning and the middle and the end of all things. God therefore, according to Augustine, still is all good, incomprehensible, and everlasting.

Too long! *stares at a butterfly* It seems here, your opinion is negative towards these western religions. You don't come out right and say it but I think thats what you were going for. I know your paper will be read by more...astute readers but maybe you could try to convey your opinion a little stronger? All I'm feeling is facts, with the underlying emotion vague, but there.

With the question of the everlasting permanence of the Goodness of God having been addressed, one now has to address how people in the religions of Abraham reach God. In essence, the way of doing so strongly resembles that of the Eastern traditions. In the Christian point of view, Christ tells Nicodemus that “For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God, again the ultimate form of love, sacrificed his only Son so that mankind could be saved. In return, all it takes is for people to accept the Gift of Christ so that all of their sins can be cleansed. Islam and Judaism share a similar belief, although slightly different, in that good actions and a heart dedicated to the one God can help cleanse sin. Again, by showing love and devotion to God in whatever way, one again takes the ultimate form of the best gift imaginable, love, and through love, they become one with God. Individuality has more importance in the West in that each person has a soul, but even in the monotheistic point of view, in Heaven, despite still having individuality and not being a “part” of God, one still will most likely lose all sense of individuality in that nothing matters except for God, the ultimate goodness, and his love. What will matter is that for these faiths, all believers will join together in a collective to worship God in his ever-lasting goodness. Based off this perspective as compared to Eastern religions, I find it conclusive to believe in the Platonic view that all people are inherently born good. Considering the vast differences in Eastern and Western religion, both cultures’ views on God still indicate that in order to reach an all-Good God, one has to take the perfect form of goodness, love. By doing this, one can in turn discover the perfect form of Love, God.

The idea of loving a god, is a..unknown one to me. I love my family because they are there for me, I love my friends because they are there for me, I love my mate because he is there for me.. I don't get the concept of having to accept Christ and have our sins 'cleansed.' I am just as sinful as any other person, but I don't get the idea of asking forgiveness from a god for your actions. For me, all I need is the forgiveness of myself and those afflicted because of my actions, and then I can rest. Just because you ask god for forgiveness, it doesn't fix what you might have done to someone else.

Skepticism invites questioning, and one can certainly question whether God does exist. One can argue that there is no perfect form; only Science governs the Universe. In this arena, I really cannot give an answer to the questions, but it does not necessarily mean that this argument has been defeated or is illogical. Consider the famous proof that indicates that God exists and no one can prove it wrong—the ontological argument by St. Anselm. Anselm admitted that he believed in God, and then he gave the famous argument to

“Conceive in your mind the most perfect being you can think of. Now ask yourself, does the entity you conceived exist only in your mind? If it is even possible that it exists only there, then is it not the most perfect entity conceivable because such an entity that existed both in your mind and extra mentally would be even more perfect. Therefore, if it is even possible even to conceive of a most perfect being, such a being necessarily exists.” [6]

Alright, you lost me here. But i'd have to argue yet again, perfect, you cannot define perfect! I'll give you an example. If you were to ask a woman to describe the perfect man, she might say. Toned abs, brown hair, blue eyes, slightly tall, muscular. While if you are to ask me about the perfect guy, I actually prefer non-toned, chubby at most. Darker hair, rounder face. And about as tall as me (not really important). But as you see, perfect varies, it is relative to a single person, and it is more unsubstantial then any other idea. I think you had a more valid point when going on about love.

The problem with this argument is that it is tautology—the proof of it depends on the presumption—the argument depends on itself. [7] Skeptics point out the philosophical crime of tautology, but they also prescribe that Anselm had a bias in that he already believed in God before creating the argument; therefore, he must have some type of agenda. I too have a belief in the Christian viewpoint on God—despite my own skepticism at times, I can see Good everyday in life, and like Augustine, I can see evil as being the absence of Good. Therefore, I have my own bias, but I have seen proof of God’s existence based on the seemingly impossible happening at times in personal situations. I have also seen Evil, the absence of Good, in many situations. Therefore, with my belief, I do believe that God exists.

God exists! According to Plato, all people are inherently born good. In the Eastern religions, all things on Earth are part of the incomprehensible, everlasting, all good Brahman, and in order to once again become a part of that original flaw, one must accept the perfect form of good, love, and in turn they will return to God. This same universal concept applies to the Western religions; God is good, and through his love one can reach him. Evil merely consists in the absence of Good in certain situations according to Augustine, so since all people have goodness, God is the ultimate form of it. Ultimately, I have beliefs in God, and I have bias. Despite whatever view on God one may take, or whichever religion ultimately may have it right, Krishna from the Bhagavad-Gita alliterates that love indeed is God best when he says that “even those who in faith worship other gods, because of their love they worship me” (9:23). Because such a good thing as love exists, God in turn therefore must exist.

More of a summary, I don't really need to add anything here... tauts, I could go for some tater-tots right now.

Atheist but open-minded to all religions. If anything, I can relate more to pagen but I'm Atheist.