The existence of God has been a major topic in philosophy, and efforts to prove or disprove his existence have taken place since the dawn of time. Prominent philosophers such as René Descartes, St. Thomas Aquinas, and William Paley have all devised arguments to prove the existence of God. Although there are many other arguments that do the same, those proposed by the three thinkers mentioned above have for them 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 to prove the existence of God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The ontological argument has no solid justifiable argument for the existence of God and the cosmological argument defeats itself as it turns into an infinite loop demonstrated later in the essay. To begin with, the ontological argument is an argument that arises from nothing but is rational. It is an a priori with vital premises to conclude that God exists. The ontological argument was created by Saint Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century AD. He used the concept of "being than which nothing greater can be conceived" to develop the existence of God. Rene Descartes had a similar position to Saint Anselmo. Descartes claims to provide proof of the presence of God starting from the possibility of an extraordinarily perfect being. Descartes also argues that "there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being devoid of existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose internal angles do not add up to 180 degrees." Therefore, he believed that since people believe in a perfect being, they have an idea of ​​a perfect being which results in the conclusion that there is a perfect being. However, the ontological argument has its weaknesses. One critic of the argument was Gaunilo. He argued that it is possible to create an argument that has the same form as the ontological argument. Gaunilo suggests that using the same form of the ontological argument it is possible to demonstrate the existence of the perfect island “the perfect island must exist, because if it did not then it would be possible to conceive of an island larger than that island of which no nothing greater can be conceived." If the ontological argument prevails, then the one in favor of the perfect island also works. If the two 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 can possess or lack”. When people believe that God exists they do not mean that there is a God and that he has the property of existence. If this were the case, then when people said that God does not exist, they would mean that God exists and does not possess the property of existence. This means that people would confirm and reject the existence of God. Moving forward, another argument used to justify the existence of God is the cosmological argument. First introduced by Thomas Aquinas, the cosmological argument states that the existence of the universe is concrete 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. People have argued that the creation and existence of the universe is a brute fact. They defend 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 a reason2) 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 snag when it simply asks, “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 bring any progress. “Without God, there is 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 does not have a cause for his existence, then this also builds another barrier to the cosmological argument. If God's existence were uncaused, then his existence would be a contradiction to "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence." This means that if God were causeless, then this last quote would be wrong 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 stated that if a clock were found on the ground, could we assume that it was always there? No, because the watch had to be put there by someone and the watch itself had to be made from smaller, more intricate pieces by a watchmaker. So, on a large scale, the universe has not always existed, it must have been created by a powerful being who is God. William Paley further notes that "we had never seen the clock made, nor the person who made it, and we may not be able to make the clock ourselves, and yet the clock exists.” He adds to his arguments that "even if the clock has no evidence of an ingenious plan, it has a reason to make a person think so" meaning that, if the universe were created but without any evidence, then it would just be Chances are, it was created by God for a reason. This argument has a flaw, people might argue: "The world is very sophisticated and complex, therefore God created it." However, we could also say: “The world is very sophisticated and complex, so James created it.” The teleological argument only reaches to the powerful being who created the universe, but does not explain the existence of God better than a thousand other creators. To conclude, looking at all three arguments there is one that has little to no flaw and that is 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 actually exists. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay Then comes the cosmological argument which is an infinite loop that does not come to a conclusion. It states that first there had to be 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, according to the teleological argument, although the universe we live in may have emerged from nothing, a universe so detailed and complex as to have the right balance to support life is unlikely. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was initially just an observation of the sophisticated structure of our world. Such an intricate and detailed world could not have been created by mere coincidence. Works Cited Thomas Aquinas, T. (1981). Summa Theologiae: Volume 1, God: 1a. 1-13. Cambridge University Press. Descartes, R. (2008). Meditations on First Philosophy: With Excerpts from Objections and Replies. Oxford University Press.Gaunilo. (2007). In defense of the madman. In M. J. Murray (ed.), Reason and religion in philosophy.