Three Arguments For The Existence Of God

The oldest philosophical question is does God exist. Past and present philosophers have tried to figure out the answer to this question. There are three arguments that argue that God does indeed exist. The three classical arguments for the existence of God are the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments. All three of these arguments have a different way for believing God does exist.

The cosmological argument is the oldest argument for the existence of God and is the most used argument. The argument is called the cosmological argument because it deals with what humans observe. Someone divine had to create the stars, the plants, and the cosmos. Philosophers believe that the divine person is indeed God. In chapter three of Consider

Philosophy by Bruce Waller tells us that “the cosmological argument is based on observations within our universe- everything that happens within our observable universe has a cause.” What this means is that everything that is on the universe, and that happens on the universe must have a cause. This argument believes God is the first cause and creator of the cosmos. He is believed to be the first mover. St. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher that believed in the cosmological argument. He argued five different ways that proved the existence of God. The five ways are from motion, efficient cause, possibility and necessity, gradation of beings, and the governance of the world. Aquinas proved each in the same manner. For example, he proved God is the reason for motion by saying, “If x moves, it is because y moves it. Either there is an infinite regress of movers or there is a first mover. If there is no first mover, then there is no motion. However, we observe motion. Therefore, there is a first mover. The first mover must be God.” Just like Aristotle, Aquinas believed there is no infinity. He believed there is only one perfect person that can create something. That perfect being and creator is God.
In his work Proslogian, Anselm proposed the first ontological argument. His argument relies on the definition of God. Anselm defined God as “that than which a greater cannot be thought.” Anselm proved God existence by steps. He stated that, “God has to exist in the mind because if he did not then there would not be a “that than which a greater cannot be thought.” Then he proves that the mind is not the only existence of God by saying, “Existence only in the mind is not the greatest form of existence. Therefore, that is saying God is not something that which a greater cannot be thought. Therefore, God is not God.” Anselm then proves the greatest form of existence is existence in the mind and in reality. He states, “If God did not exist in both the mind and reality, then God is not God. Therefore, he must exist in both mind and reality.” Descartes is another philosopher that had an ontological argument for the existence of God. He argues that God exist by saying, “I exist as a thinking thing. I have in mind the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect image. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist. Therefore, a perfect being must exist because my mind has the imagine of a perfect being.” He used the method of doubt to determine what he knows with certainty.
The teleological argument is originated from the Greek word telos meaning end or purpose. This argument is also known as the argument from design. The teleological argument proves the existence of God from the order of the universe. What this means is that the universe is created how it is because it was created by an intelligent being. The philosopher William Paley developed this argument. Paley proves the existence of God by a watch analogy. The analogy is “if I find a watch, I can reasonably suppose that the watch was made. Given the detailed craftsmanship I can reasonably propose an intelligent being designed the watch. The watch has an ordered purpose. A designer had to create the watch. Therefore, it is reasonable to purpose. This designer is distinguishable from the universe. The designer is God.” This argument relies upon knowing there is a designer based upon how an object is designed.
All three of these arguments prove the existence of God differently.

The cosmological argument is based assertions of the first mover and a cause to prove he exist. The ontological argument is a concept of God as proof of existence. This argument is about how someone cannot doubt that there is a perfect being because you can picture one. Lastly the teleological argument is based on observation, and how things are designed for a purpose. Of all three of these arguments, the most convincing one to me is the teleological argument. I will explain why I think this with an example. When I see a beautiful sunset across the sky, I love to take a picture of it. I am amazed by the beautiful colors in the sky. When I look at that sunset I think, how could someone not believe in God. He is the one that created this beautiful sunset. He is the designer of the sunset. The sunset has a purpose, and I believe it is because God wants us to be reminded of the beautiful creations he creates. When I scroll though my Facebook feed, I often see people taking and picture of something and saying the same thing. I have seen people say something about the ocean, mountains, flowers, and so many other beautiful creations. I know that God is the designer of this world. Someone had to create that sunset, and it was God. Another reason I believe in the teleological argument is because of the purpose of objects. I believe if the eye was not designed the way it is designed, we could not see. God designed the eye the way he did for a purpose, and that was so we could see. The teleological argument is more convincing because it is about a designer that created this world and the things in this world for a purpose. I believe God created me for a certain purpose. I do not know if I have done what God has wanted me to do, but I do know I was designed for a reason. The ontological argument is not enough to convince me. This argument gives a definition of God and because of that definition he must

exist. Different people have different definitions of God. Basing an argument solely on a definition in my opinion is not good enough. The biggest problem of the ontological argument is that it does go back to infinity. It is like saying God started here because I said so. How do we know that? How do we know that this world was the first universe to be created? We do not know if God created two universes before creating the one we live in. I am not saying that the cosmological or ontological argument is not a little convincing, but I think the teleological argument is just more convincing based on how I see the world.