Cosmological Vs Ontological Argument

There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each was proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction. However, one of the arguments is superior ant that is the ontological argument. The Ontological argument is the stronger of the two due to the fact that it is based on pure logic and reasoning.
The major premise of the Ontological argument is about
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions. The proponent of the cosmological argument was St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian in the eleventh century CE (Solomon). He proposed that everything that exists must have a cause, and that the cause was God (Aquinas). Aquinas’ first point was based off of motion, that nothing can be both the mover and moved. An item sitting in place has the potential to be moving, but cannot move unless something that is already moving imparts motion to it
One problem is that even though there may be a prime mover it does not mean that it is the God of the Abrahamic tradition. It could be any other entity one chooses to interpret it as. Robert C. Solomon a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas, Austin stated that “one may accept the argument and believe in a first cause, but still deny the existence of God” (Solomon). Another weakness, arguably the biggest one also lies with the idea of the infinite regress. It can be a strength if one does not believe it possible, but this strength quickly becomes a weakness in light of new thought in physics. With contemporary science the idea of an infinite regress is not impossible, and as such the main building block of the cosmological argument is swept away leaving a large hole in its place