I am and have always been a firm believer in God and my religion since I was very young. I was taught never to let my faith waiver, so yes I believe in God and the examples of the reasoning from the texts that I have read. What I am sure of though is that the texts in the book aren't exactly what everyone believes or takes as the full truth.
             The account of Buber is much more appealing to me then the passages by Anselm or Aquinas. This is mainly because of how Buber describes as more of a Supreme Being or a control in our world. Buber's account is more of a proof by showing and telling about how God is and created everything. He did this in similar ways as Anselm and Aquinas but Buber shows the glory of God which is much more evidence rather than a complicated oddly written passage on existence.
             On the other hand, though the way that God in all his entirety is described in the Bhagavad - Gita seems to be much more complete. How He is described as the "Prince of all things created," "He who sees all action," or how it states, "Everywhere are His hands, eyes, feet; His head and His face: This whole world is his ear; He exists and encompasses everything." These ideas seem to be much more complete of a design for a Supreme Being who has created our world, everything in it and everything around it. The arguments by Buber, Aquinas, and Anselm are good but all of them seem to be missing key convictions that the Gita has. Their God that each of their essays present don't show God as everything perfect in you , around you. Their passages don't show how beautiful and perfect God's creations are, or that He is perfect. While the Bhagavad - Gita shows God as being more complete and perfect with just the passion and description of the text.
             Definitely the more appealing of the passages is the Bhagavad - Gita because it fits more of my perception and picture of God. While others m...