Cosmological Argument: Proving The Existence Of God

There are 3 main arguments that each seek to prove the existence of God; the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological Arguments. Each is different in its approach, but all arrive at the same conclusion. Ontological Argument argues God’s existence from the assumption of the existence a “Greatest Thing that can ever be conceived.” From there, it argues that in order for something to be “The Greatest Thing ever” it must exist physically (that is outside of the mind). The Cosmological Argument argues that since everything in the universe is contingent (or is dependent on other things for its existence), there must be a first cause that set the universe in motion. The final argument is the Teleological Argument, This argues that we can see or
Take that Dawkins!” But before the balloons get inflated, let’s examine this argument. There’s this guy called David Hume, and he has some criticisms that may puncture a few balloons. The first has to do with the comparing of a watch to the universe. The most complicated watch in the world (I looked it up) has over 900 parts; which is a lot. However when 900 is compared to the billions of star systems and uncountable planets, the comparison falls a little short. How can something as relatively simple as a watch be rightly compared to an entirely different thing? On top of that, modern science now thinks that the universe acts more like an organism than a machine. This is also a slight problem. At any rate, even if there is a designer, he clearly isn't very good. The universe seems to demonstrate signs of disorder and chaos regularly. Chemists still don't know why things do what they do, and Newtonian physics just got rewritten. If the universe has any order or pattern, it’s to be unpredictable and
It is commonly believed that a watch does not contain its maker. They are two very separate entities. However, if God (the watch maker) is completely separate from his “watch” than he cannot enter nature and interact with us or nature itself. If this is true, than God wouldn't be able to direct all the unintelligent forces that need directing throughout the universe. It seems to me that the laws of nature and physics are a much better explanation for phenomena that are experienced throughout our universe. What do I think? When you look at the arguments against it, the Teleological Argument doesn't appear to be of any value whatsoever. I don't think many people who critically think about the implications and limitations of this argument will be affected positively by it. But the thing is, I don't think people will think critically about it. I think the people that read this argument want it to be true. Their want to belief blinds them to any objections they might otherwise see in it. They see what they want to