What are key differences between the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments? Identify the philosopher who you think best supports his or her argument.
The Ontological argument states that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. Anyone that considers that God does not exist is a "fool". The Ontological argument is believed to be a play on words and proves nothing. It is based on different premises but they do not compliment each other.
The Teleological argument states that Gods existence can be proved by Aquinas five ways. The "first way" to prove that God exists is to consider that natural things are in motion. There had to be a first mover in order for other things to move therefore God must have been the first mover. The "second way" states that nothing in the world causes itself. The same thing applies to this way that was stated in the first way. God would be the first cause. The "third way" states that in nature everything need not exist, despite the fact that is does exist. The "fourth way" wants us to consider that all natural things posess degrees of goodness, truth, nobility and all other perfections. There must be a source of these perfections and that would be God. The "fifth way" states that natural things act for an end purpose.
The Cosmological argument states that everything that exists has a cause for their existence. The universe exists therefore there is a cause for it's existence. God is the ultimate creator of existence.
None of the arguments are based on religious assumptions.
The philosopher that best supports their argument would be Alvin Plantinga. He is a contemporary analytic philosopher who believes that a person may believe in God without any evidence that suggests that God does exist.
five examples of fallacies in the social media