Ontological And Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God

Does God exist? The debate as to whether or not there is a “God” has raged on since ancient times, and it appears that collectively, humanity will never agree on a solid answer. However, throughout history, three arguments for God’s existence have come into creation: the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments, respectively. There are numerous positions to take. However, the best position to take when arguing for God’s existence is the Teleological position because it has the most sensible and sound reasoning of the three. Firstly, the contents of the arguments must be identified. The first argument for God’s existence to evaluate is the Ontological argument. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

The Ontological argument’s greatest strength is that it is founded entirely in logic, as opposed to emotion. One would think that such an objective approach would eliminate or mitigate bias, but this is not the case. The Ontological argument’s undoing is found in its circular reasoning for why God exists. Essentially, all the argument presents is that “God is the best, therefore he exists, because he’s the best, because he exists, and because he exists in one place, he exists everywhere, and that makes him the best, because he exists...” and so on and so forth. If God is “the best” because he exists in one place, and by extension, everywhere, then by that same reasoning, wouldn’t that imply that humans are the best? What about water, or empty space? Why are the goalposts suddenly shifted in order to elevate God? The argument provides the false impression that it is sound and objective, but relies on circular reasoning and goalpost shifting in order to convey its point, which causes it to fall apart. God cannot exist simply because he’s “the best”. The next argument, Cosmological, has improved reasoning as opposed to the Ontological argument. It utilized the idea of causality, which contributes to its sound reasoning, but it suffers from the same goalpost-shifting that weakens the Ontological argument. The argument states that “everything has a cause”, and that the “first cause” that causes everything else is God, but this is where the argument deteriorates. If everything has a cause, then doesn’t that mean that God has a cause as well? Where this argument falls aparts lies in its implication that the rules of causality don’t apply to God. Ultimately, this argument is more sound than the Ontological argument, but it stagnates. The final and most sound of all the arguments for God’s existence is the Teleological argument. One of it’s