The Nature of GodThe factual nature of God (given that He exists as a first cause) is still debated by most Christians. Many questions also arise about the nature of God. We all know that at some point we will die; Yet we systematically deny the causes that operate within us and look at the actual outcome of what happens after a person dies. It is much simpler for humanity to accept that it will go to a safe home in Heaven and that all its sins will be forgiven by a supreme being, rather than to question the existence of this extremely all being. -powerful. Fortunately, some of us generally question this existence and the development of humanity; in addition to the spiritual lessons obtained from our mothers and fathers, our community and our religion. This essay studies both logical justifications for and against the nature of God; in accordance with the opinions of some exceptional researchers and philosophers. Through two classic arguments in favor of God: After the ontological argument and the teleological argument, I will show that there is no adequate proof or extensive justification for the true nature of God. According to the ontological argument, God generally represents a higher, sacred, and all-powerful being, the celestial unity of the greatest truth and greatest spiritual benefits. Saint Anselm of Canterbury conceived the ontological argument by saying that even a dupe can understand or appreciate the concept of an all-powerful being from whom nothing superior can be created. Anselm consistently stated that a dupe articulates that the nature of that being is only in his thoughts and in the brains of others, rather than in reality. With words like perfect, necessary and existing, which are integrated into the middle of the paper world. Our ideas do not determine the real nature of God. Unfortunately, it becomes shockingly obvious to me that the nature of God centered on blind trust is no longer a custom worth adhering to. Throughout my analysis, I expected to discover a means of proof to maintain the direction of trust in God instilled in me by my religion. Unfortunately, this was not the case; ontological and teleological arguments have never connected the perceived world to a supreme God. On the one hand, the teleological argument has yielded erroneous results from analogies between scientific statements and materialists have proposed solutions that may be rationally legitimate. On the other hand, the ontological argument failed because it was misleading due to terms that could not expand to become truth. Therefore, there is no adequate proof or thorough justification for the nature of God..