The existence of God is an important topic in philosophy and efforts to prove or disprove his existence have been taking place since the dawn of time. Notable philosophers such as René Descartes, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and William Paley all devised arguments to prove the existence of God. Although there are many other arguments along the same lines, those offered by the three aforementioned thinkers carry the most weight. This does not mean, however, that their arguments are flawless. The teleological argument is far superior to other arguments because it has the fewest flaws in proving the existence of God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe ontological argument does not have a strong, justifiable argument for the existence of God and the cosmological argument falls apart of itself as it turns into an infinite loop proven later. in the test. First of all, the ontological argument is an argument that comes from nothing but is rational. It is an a priori with vital premises for concluding that God exists. The ontological argument was created by Saint Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century CE. He used the concept of “a being beyond which nothing greater can be conceived” to expand on the existence of God. René Descartes had a position similar to that of Saint Anselm. Descartes claims to provide proof demonstrating the presence of God based on the possibility of a remarkably perfect being. Descartes also maintains that "there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being devoid of existence than in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees." Thus, he reasoned that since people believe in a perfect being, they have an idea of ​​a perfect being which results in the conclusion that a perfect being exists. However, the ontological argument has its weaknesses. Gaunilo criticized this argument. He argued that it is possible to create an argument having the same form as the ontological argument. Gaunilo suggests that using the same form of ontological argument, it is possible to prove the existence of the perfect island: "the perfect island must exist, because if it did not, then it would be possible to conceive an island greater than that which nothing greater can be conceived.” If the ontological argument prevails, then the perfect island argument also works. If both arguments have the same form, then they succeed or fail together. Furthermore, Immanuel Kant also has an objection against the ontological argument. His position on the subject is that "existence is not a predicate, a property that a thing may or may not possess." When people believe that God exists, they do not mean that there is a God and that He has the property of existing. If that were the case, then when people declared that God does not exist, they would mean that there is a God and that He does not have the property of existing. This means that people would both confirm and deny the existence of God. Then another argument used to justify the existence of God is the cosmological argument. First introduced by Thomas Aquinas, the cosmological argument asserts that the existence of the universe is strong evidence for the creator of the world we live in, God. The argument also states that the existence of the universe needs an explanation and that the only acceptable explanation is that it was created by God. Some claim that the creation and existence of the universe is a brute fact. They argue that justifying the existence of an imperative being is not the same as proving the existence of God. A simple way to explain the cosmological argument is: 1) Everything that exists has areason 2) The universe exists. Therefore: 3) The universe has a cause for its existence. 4) If the universe has a cause for its existence, then that cause is God. Therefore: 5) God exists. However, this argument hits a roadblock when we simply ask "Is there a cause for the existence of God?" If God has a cause for his existence, then hypothesizing the existence of God to prove the existence of the universe will not make progress. “Without God, there exists an entity whose existence we cannot explain, namely the universe; with God, there is an entity whose existence we cannot explain, namely God. » Furthermore, if the thought that God has no cause for his existence, this also builds another barrier for the cosmological argument. If God's existence were not caused, then His existence would be a contradiction to "Everything that exists has a cause for its existence." Which means that if God has no cause, then this last quote would be false and this would cause the cosmological argument to fail. Finally, the teleological argument presented by William Paley, also known as the Design Argument, is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God. Paley said if a watch was found on the ground, could we assume it was still there? No, because the watch had to be placed there by someone and the watch itself had to be made from smaller, complex parts by a watchmaker. So on a large scale, the universe did not always exist, it must have been created by a powerful being who is God. William Paley also notes that "we had never seen the watch being made, nor the person making it, and we may not be able to make the watch ourselves, yet the watch exists." He adds to his arguments that "even if the watch has no proof of an ingenious plan, it has a motive to make it seem so", meaning that if the universe had been created but without any proof, it would not would be that It is likely that it was created by God for a reason. There is a flaw in this argument: People might say, "The world is very sophisticated and complex, that's why God created it." " However, one could also say "The world is very sophisticated and complex, that's why James created it." The teleological argument only goes back to the powerful being who created the universe, but it does not explain the existence of God any better than a thousand other creators. To conclude, in examining the three arguments, there is one that has little or no flaw: the teleological argument. The ontological argument does not provide a clear argument for the existence of God, but it speaks to the fact that it is not possible for people to determine a being that we are not sure exists really. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a custom essayNext comes the cosmological argument which is an infinite loop that does not reach a conclusion. He states that there had to be first a cause for the creation of the universe, then a cause for creating God, then a cause for creating the being that created God and so on. Now the teleological argument, although the universe we live in could have arisen out of nowhere, but a universe with this much detail and complexity and having the right balance to support life is unlikely. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution began as observations of the sophisticated design of our world. Such a complex and detailed world could not have been created by mere coincidence. Works Cited Aquinas, T. (1981). Summa Theologiae: Volume 1, God: 1a. 1-13. Cambridge University Press. Descartes, R. (2008). Meditations on the First Philosophy: With Selections of Objections and.