One thing I have noticed is that every philosopher argues for or against the definition of God given by Catholics/Christians. That is, God is a supreme spiritual being who is the creator of the universe, yet is everywhere, and can see everything; he is all knowing and forgiving. Plato definition of God is a craftsman that governs the universe. Aristotle’s version of God is not a personal being like we find in Christian tradition. His God performs no more acts of will or love than gravity. Aquinas’s God has inapprehensible divine essence, which is identical to his existence, and he directs all natural things to their end. Descartes God is an infinite perfect being that causes all effects including ideas. Hume on the other hand argues, that the cause of the finite world is unlimited, and only needs to be as great as it’s effect. Therefore, Hume does not believe there is enough evidence to conclude that there is a God.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS are definitions of God. Which generally defines him to be a supreme being, ultimate being, or perfect being, that has divine unity of ultimate goodness and of ultimate reality.

ve always questioned Catholicism, and what others take on as blind faith in God. We all know that someday we will die (physically), but we deny what may or may not happen to us after death. It’s far easier for humans to accept that we just die, or go to a safe place (heaven) than to question the existence of a superior being. Knowing all of this we still end up questioning the creation of humanity, the religious teachings provided by our parents, our church and our society. During this paper we will examine the many rational arguments for and against the existence of God. It is based on the views of some of the great philosophers of our world.

David Hume introduced the idea that the universe could have happened by chance, and not by design. Given an infinite amount of matter in the universe, it is proven that the probability of the atoms that make up this universe, as we know it to be with an infinite amount of time is almost a 100% certain to take place. David Hume stated in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” that there is no way to logically link something unknown in the world with something known in the world. He also states, “It is extremely rash to take a very small part of the universe and make it the rule for the whole universe”. To me Hume’s explanations are scientifically rational. I think the teleological argument can only suggest the possibility of an actualized atom, and does not provide enough evidence that the universe was created. So where is God’s place or role in the universe?

The arguments presented by Plato gave the theist belief that the cosmological arguments are still hopeful. Plato’s arguments are based on the obvious, such as every day we observe things moving. Another either moves things that move or they are self-moved. If they are self-moved then they must be eternal. Within this argument for a first cause, Plato’s self-mover is God. This argument can be questioned by asking: When the wind blows the door shut, do we believe God was the cause? I doubt it, since the scientific knowledge we posses today explains the forces of the wind. Although, Hume brings up a valid argument for this concept, if Plato can’t conceive the thought that things with movement don’t necessarily have a mover, and not all effects have causes, then they sho

Some topics in this essay:
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS, Thomas Aquinas’s, COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS, Aquinas Descartes, God Throughout, God Aquinas’s, Natural Religion”, Catholics/Christians God, David Hume, TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS, god’s existence, existence god, cosmological arguments, essence exist, arguments existence god, believe god, directs natural, arguments don’t, ‘first cause’, god cause, hume’s argument, argument god’s existence, exist provide existence, essence exist provide,