William Paley's argument seems most likely to be true when questioning the existence of God. Paley's argues that because artifacts that are created by humans, and that the universe itself resembles human artifacts, that the world must also have been created by intelligent design. He also argues that the world is too complex to be anything but a creation of a grand designer. Paley's argument seems the most plausible. This is because just looking at how large of a scale the universe is on, and how incredibly complex it all is. Everything from a single celled organism to the vast expansion of …show more content…
This is the argument that St. Anselm presented. In someways this could be seen as logical and plausible argument. After all if we think up an infinite and all powerful being that's greater than God, wouldn't that become God? On the other hand just because a person can think of a something doesn't mean that it necessarily exists. Gaunilo argued against St. Anselm's with this very logic. But in order for Gaunilo's argument to work that would mean that God would have to have a beginning and an end, which would completely void the term infinite from God's definition. In order for God to be real he would have to be