The Ontological Argument Analysis

Is there a God? This is a question that crosses the minds of everyone in the world, at least once. While this question is highly controversial, the world must come to the realization that there is not one definite answer. This may seem confusing to most people, and the concept will probably never be fully grasped. But there are five particular philosophers who have formed strong opinions and arguments to address the question at hand and seem to have it all figured out. Philosophy and religion do indeed have an unsettled relationship, but this relationship only challenges minds, inspires people to think, and allows others to obtain a deeper and more detailed perspective. The philosopher St. Anselm presents an argument known as “The Ontological
This particular argument is also in favor if the idea that God does in fact exist, but Aquinas has a different explanation from Anselm. Thomas Aquinas presents the argument known as the “Cosmological” or “first cause”. In a few words, this means that Aquinas believes there must have been a first cause in the world. Aquinas argues that the proof of Gods existence is based on the basis of experiences. God must exist because every being that is dependent for existence was caused by something else that happened prior to it. He believes either there is a boundless chain of contingent beings that is extending backwards or there is a first cause, something that was not caused by something else but began everything else. But in reality, there cannot be a continuous chain extending backwards. Therefore; there is a first cause, something that was not caused by anything else but started everything else that currently exists. Aquinas claims the existence of God can be proven in five ways: Argument from motion, Nature of efficient cause, possibility and necessity, gradation, and Governance of the world. Aquinas gives us an argument that is not hard to interpret. There must have been one who created mankind, constructing the world one being at a time. It is very easy to go along with the idea that there is one person or thing that created everything else. While this argument is clear and
Although I disagree with his opinion, Hume exhibits a very sensible argument. David Hume explains four essential circumstances. First of which, Hume believes that God should dispose of all pain. Because both pain and pleasure stimulate humans equally, why should we be able to experience pain? For example, as regular humans we experience feelings such as thirst and hunger, instead of being able to feel the pain of it, we should just be feeling a lack of pleasure. Why is it necessary to feel pain when I simply want to eat or drink something? Secondly, God should eliminate all general laws of nature. For example, if a car crash is about to happen, God should interfere and insure that no person will come to death or extreme injury/pain. Next, God should not dispense talents and abilities unevenly between each of his creations. “God” created animals that obtain optimal strength, ability to fly, and run incredible speeds, while humans are left with minimal physical strengths. God also created people that are talented in sports, making life easier to stay in shape and a possible career by pursuing these particular talents, while there are others who have no special talent and are forced to take extra measures in order to gain fitness and a future career. God should have given equality to all of his creations. Finally, Nature seems to have defects that allow us to see that sometimes