Philosophical Vision: Religious Epistemology

“No law’s gonna change us/We have to change us/Whatever god you believe in/We come from the same one/Strip away the fear, underneath, it’s all the same love/About time that we raised up!” –

            Tolstoy’s five ways for the proof of God is a weak argument consisting of ignorance, Epicureanism, strength, weakness and faith. To strengthen the proof of God, there needs to be more experiences with the existence other than the five ways listed above. I am not saying God does not exist; however the existence of God is unified within all religions and not just one.
            If God existed, his being would have three characteristics, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. If that was the case, what about the evil and the power the Homo sapiens beings may have encountered and experienced throughout the centuries of our existence? What is God’s intent for our trials, tribulations and so-called sinister ways in this world? Even the most religious individuals are not that perfect on this Earth. No one is, so how is God? The argument is Lucifer or Satan. If that is the case, He would be the direct opposite of God with the all evil, all knowing, and all powerful. That must mean Earth is a battlefield for good vs. evil. That must mean the purpose of the creation of Earth is to be the scale which is supposed to balance good and evil. If this is also the case, then God is not “all-powerful” or “all-knowing” considering Lucifer would also be “all-powerful” and “all-knowing” and “all-evil”.  Also, if God is “all-good”, there should be no war within the numerous religions, especially the monotheistic religions on who is right and who is wrong.
According to Gideon Rosen from Princeton, “Anselm aim is to refute the fools who say in his heart there is no God.” Anselm’s argument also states that the fool has two features that should not co-exist with one another. One is: the fool understands God’s existence and two: He still does not believe God exists. Also, if one God and one Satan do exist, good and evil, how does one explain our other feelings or emotions we may feel.
            One counter argument against the a priori proof of God is Guanillo’s argument. If God, himself is the greatest being ever existed and he is one God, what about the greatest ice cream cone, the greatest Christmas present, or the greatest vacation spot. Everybody’s answer will be different; therefor this proof is vacuous, it’s empty.
            Another, fallacy for the ontological argument is the fact that it only plays part with one religion, Christianity. If that is the case, then all other religions world-wide are all fallacies, including the religions that existed prior to Christianity and even Judaism. What seems to be the most corrected religion for the existence of God(s) would be Hinduism; a religion where it is a belief of numerous Gods and Goddesses that are good and bad.
If we have to consider Jerusalem which has the physical proofs of God within three separate Religions, along with their Bibles and K’Raan as a solid proof, then we should also consider the temples of the Gods and Goddesses that also still stand today as ruins in Greece today, as well as, the pyramids in Egypt. According to several of ‘Myth’s’ English definition, for example, “an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. That would also make Religion itself a false collective belief that also is used to justify a social institution.
            If one God and Lucifer exist, then we must be able to see them along with their angels and demons. This plays well into Tolstoy’s theology and plays a bit into the psychological reason; from a rationalist and possibly an idealist’s view point, you don’t need physical proof of God. Deisms backed up the rationalist’s point and would say that God came, He created and then He left the world to be and allow it take its course.
            Thomas Aquinas asked the simple question, is the world and universe a proof for God? His belief for God was that anything that changes was set to motion. It can’t just happen itself. There has to be something that had to start all change. It falls under the causation factor.
The problem with causation is the fact of it being an induction. Induction, unlike deduction, isn’t just true or false. It is a gray area itself with possible holes. Anytime we have an induction, it is only a probability or an analogy. It is either likely or unlikely. There is no black and white. For example, the Teleological proof of God, the design of it is “if watches have a watchmaker then the world must have a world maker, i.e. God.
            If the Universe and Space itself is the proof of God, per say, then it is also the proof of Zeus (Jupiter), Ares (Mars), Aphrodite (Venus), etc. Let’s not forget about all the star constellations, according to Kaler’s web page that lists the names. According to Kaler, they are also named after Hercules, Hydra, Pegasus, Centaurus, etc.; they are all ancient/mythical creatures from prior to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Constellations and Planets are mainly named after the Ancient Gods and Goddess of “Mythology”.
There are numerous problems with the design proof of one God. One of the facts that the world itself is organic and not mechanic unlike the watch. Another statement to argue with this induction is the common one. Materialists would say that you can perceive a watchmaker; however you can’t perceive a world maker. The last problem would go back to the Ontological argument where the world isn’t perfect, i.e. the evil that humans do.  
Christians, Islam and Judaism would still say the Bible and/or K’Raan are from God himself, and that others interpret the messages wrong through The Holy Books. Believers of any of those religions still say that God is full of goodness, love and forgiveness. The stories are true; the prophets of God are true.
            What is the purpose of numerous testaments, old or new and the purpose for “re-writing” the Bible, if the message came straight from God, himself? If people weren’t full of ignorance, then there wouldn’t be so many wars based on religion and beliefs of one’s God(s) and/or Goddess(es). Also, if there is just one God, what is the purpose of the numerous religions? Belief is relevant to Mathematics. It’s just there, no real perception through the senses, but the education given to us. It’s self-evident, without true entitlements.
Kaler, Jim. “Stars: The Constellations”. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  1781.
Web.  9/11/2012


American Psychological Association (APA): “myth”. Unabridged. 17 December 2012. Web.


Rosen, Gideon. “Anselm, The Ontological Argument.” Stuart Professor of Philosophy. 02 February 1999. Web. 5/11/2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s