Arguments Against Anselm's Cosmological Argument

I do not find any of the traditional proofs for God’s existence persuasive, and I will go over each argument one at a time to explain why I do not find them persuasive, starting with Anselm’s ontological argument, then Aquinas’ cosmological argument, and finally Paley’s teleological argument. First, Anselm’s ontological argument is not persuasive because the argument can be used to prove things that do not exist. The faulty logic is shown in Gaunilo’s Lost Island Objection because instead of putting God as the thing to prove, Guanilo puts an island, and the logic still holds up. However, the argument does not hold up and would need more evidence or logical backing for why God works and the island does not. If someone says one is true, but the
The definition seems to be different from most definitions of God. God is usually a creator, a controller of the universe, or an arbiter of morality. When Anselm tries to prove this form of God, it is disconnected from many attributes described as God. Another point against this line is that God does not have to be constrained by our thoughts. God could be something beyond our comprehension. Many religious people use this as a defense for the problem of evil, or the statement is in many holy texts, like the Bible in Philippians 4:7, and many other religions hold similar ideas. So, using that definition of God would not be persuasive. Next, Aquinas’ cosmological argument has many suppositions. An example would be God being "naturally implanted in all" (Levin et al.). Many nontheistic religions and societies do not worship deities. Also, many atheist and agnostic individuals in modern times show that the point does not hold up for everyone, which the argument states as one of its points. God is not inherent in everyone, so God is not self-evident in this way or naturally implanted in many