Editing Philosophy of religion (section)

=== Ultimate reality ===
Different religions have different ideas about [[ultimate reality]], its source or ground (or lack thereof) and also about what is the "Maximal Greatness".<ref>Yandell, Keith E. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A contemporary introduction, Routledge, 2002, Part II in general</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last = Wainwright |first = William |title = Concepts of God |encyclopedia = The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |edition = Spring 2017 |editor-last = Zalta |editor-first = Edward N. |url = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/concepts-god/ |date = 2006-12-21 |access-date = 2017-12-12 |archive-date = 2019-03-18 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190318123503/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/concepts-god/ |url-status = live }}</ref> [[Paul Tillich]]'s concept of 'Ultimate Concern' and [[Rudolf Otto]]'s '[[The Idea of the Holy|Idea of the Holy]]' are concepts which point to concerns about the ultimate or highest truth which most religious philosophies deal with in some way. One of the main differences among religions is whether the ultimate reality is a [[personal god]] or an impersonal reality.<ref>Rowe 2007, p.&nbsp;179.</ref><ref>Meister, Chad. Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Routledge 2009, chapter 3.</ref>

In [[Western religions]], various forms of [[theism]] are the most common conceptions, while in [[Eastern religions]], there are theistic and also various [[Nontheism|non-theistic]] conceptions of the Ultimate. Theistic vs non-theistic is a common way of sorting the different types of religions.<ref>see the whole structure of 'Yandell, 2002.'</ref>

There are also several philosophical positions with regard to the [[existence of God]] that one might take including various forms of theism (such as [[monotheism]] and [[polytheism]]), [[agnosticism]] and different forms of [[atheism]].

====Monotheism====
[[File:St-thomas-aquinas.jpg|thumb|225px|[[Aquinas]] considered five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as the ''[[quinque viae]]'' (Five Ways).]]
[[Keith Yandell]] outlines roughly three kinds of historical monotheisms: [[Monotheism#Ancient Greek religion|Greek]], [[Abrahamic religions|Semitic]] and [[Hindu views on monotheism|Hindu]]. Greek monotheism holds that the world has always existed and does not believe in [[creationism]] or [[divine providence]], while Semitic monotheism believes the world was created by a God at a particular point in time and that this God acts in the world.<ref>Yandell, Keith E. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A contemporary introduction, Routledge, 2002, page 86-89.</ref> Indian monotheism teaches that the world is beginningless, but that there is God's act of creation which sustains the world.<ref>Yandell, 2002, p.&nbsp;90.</ref>

The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the [[existence of God]] is one aspect of what is known as [[natural theology]] or the natural theistic project. This strand of natural theology attempts to justify belief in God by independent grounds. Perhaps most of the philosophy of religion is predicated on natural theology's assumption that the existence of God can be justified or warranted on rational grounds. There has been considerable philosophical and theological debate about the kinds of proofs, justifications and arguments that are appropriate for this discourse.{{NoteTag|See e.g. [[Antony Flew]], [[John Polkinghorne]], [[Keith Ward]], [[Alvin Plantinga]] and [[Richard Swinburne]]}}

====Non-theistic conceptions====
{{Further|Nontheistic religion|Transtheism}}
[[File:Seshin Vasubandhu Kofukuji.jpg|thumb|225px|The Buddhist [[Vasubandhu]] argued against Hindu creator god views and for an impersonal conception of absolute reality that has been described as a form of Idealism.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/hilltopreview/vol4/iss1/6|title=Idealism in Yogācāra Buddhism|first=Sean|last=Butler|date=Sep 27, 2011|journal=The Hilltop Review|volume=4|issue=1|access-date=Sep 9, 2020|archive-date=August 17, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200817173251/https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/hilltopreview/vol4/iss1/6/|url-status=live}}</ref>]]
Eastern religions have included both theistic and other alternative positions about the ultimate nature of reality. One such view is [[Jainism]], which holds a [[Dualism (Indian philosophy)|dualistic]] view that all that exists is matter and a multiplicity of souls (''[[Jīva (Jainism)|jiva]]''), without depending on a supreme deity for their existence. There are also different Buddhist views, such as the [[Theravada]] [[Abhidharma]] view, which holds that the only ultimately existing things are transitory phenomenal events (''[[Abhidharma#Dharma theory|dharmas]]'') and their [[dependent origination|interdependent relations]].<ref>Yandell, 2002, p.&nbsp;101.</ref> [[Madhyamaka]] Buddhists such as [[Nagarjuna]] hold that ultimate reality is emptiness (''[[shunyata]]'') while the [[Yogacara]] holds that it is ''vijñapti'' (mental phenomena). In Indian philosophical discourses, monotheism was defended by Hindu philosophers (particularly the [[Nyaya]] school), while Buddhist thinkers argued against their conception of a [[Creator deity|creator god]] (Sanskrit: [[Ishvara]]).<ref>Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad (Reviewer) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=z88GAfvNGH0C&q=Nyaya Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India]''. By Parimal Patil. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. p.&nbsp;406.</ref>

The Hindu view of [[Advaita Vedanta]], as defended by [[Adi Shankara]], is a total [[non-dualism]]. Although Advaitins do believe in the usual Hindu gods, their view of ultimate reality is a radically [[monistic]] oneness ([[Brahman]] without qualities) and anything which appears (like persons and gods) is illusory (''maya'').<ref>Yandell, 2002, p.&nbsp;105.</ref>

The various philosophical positions of [[Taoism]] can also be viewed as non-theistic about the ultimate reality ([[Tao]]). [[Taoist philosophy|Taoist philosophers]] have conceived of different ways of describing the ultimate nature of things. For example, while the Taoist [[Xuanxue]] thinker [[Wang Bi]] argued that everything is "rooted" in''[[Mu (negative)|Wu]]'' (non-being, nothingness), [[Guo Xiang]] rejected ''Wu'' as the ultimate source of things, instead arguing that the ultimate nature of the Tao is "spontaneous self-production" (''zi sheng'') and "spontaneous self-transformation" (''zi hua'').<ref>{{cite web| url = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/neo-daoism/| title = Chan, Alan, "Neo-Daoism", ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)| date = October 2009| last1 = Chan| first1 = Alan| access-date = 2020-01-10| archive-date = 2019-03-18| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190318042139/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/neo-daoism/| url-status = live}}</ref>

Traditionally, Jains and Buddhists did not rule out the existence of limited deities or divine beings, they only rejected the idea of a single all-powerful creator God or First cause posited by monotheists.