Analytical journal entry:

Existentialist essay: In reading on Taoism, I have begun to note an oddly ubiquitous nature to the ideals of religion. It seems as thought there are a set of rules of guidelines that define what we as humans see as good that surpass (nay, transcend) any common religious imperative. Nearly universally, humans see humility, courage, wisdom, kindness, and love as excellent qualities to strive to obtain. What does this mean in the large picture of things? The previous statements imply that there is a singular factor that underlies humans as a whole. From that, it is basic logic to next assume that, for that universal effect, there is also a universal cause to bring said effects into being. What then, must be the magnitude of such an effect? To be able to instill universal values into an entire species, we can deduce two things: first, that whatever be the causality, that it is beyond human comprehension (for what understandable reason can explain the development essential moralities on top of the parasympathetic survival mentality? No, this desire has been placed, first and foremost.), second, that the power of this being is beyond comprehendible magnitude, as is noted by the fact that, to plant any idea in the morals of all is a challenge of deistic proportions.

Hitherto, we have defined a universal causality, but the real inquiry is, why dont we simply worship the Universal Cause instead? Therein lies the crux of the foundation of religion. Religion --based on the previous model discussed-- can be constituted a nothing more than humankinds attempt to quantify, qualify (even as non-qualifiable), and worship the Universal Cause, which, because of its indefinable nature, resists universally definable character. It is for the universal cause that we are here, and because of it that we have religion. I call the universal cause God.