The Ontological and Teleological arguments have multiple similarities and differences in the sense that they both are proving the existence of God, and how God is all powerful; but the major differences are the idea of the proving the existence solely through thought and the proven existence through the physical world and intricate order of nature. The Teleological argument goes more in-depth with its argument of the existence of God by providing more physical proof for people to visualize the idea of God through things in nature. This is conveyed by what cannot be explained through science are then constituted as acts of God in order to “fill the gaps”; such as the origins of the universe, human nature, and questions …show more content…
In order for God to be perfect he has to possess all of the divine characteristics such as; omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence because existence is a necessary condition to perfection. The notion of God’s perfection is succeeded by his existence and that in order for him to be perfect he must exist. That without existence it is like a triangle without 3 sides, it no longer would exist. The Teleological argument doesn’t directly/explicitly bring in God’s attributes to explain intentions like Ontological argument. It rather just talks about God as a creator and does not go to the same extent. The two arguments are very different but in the end both come back to the idea that God exist and is all …show more content…
The two arguments go into this idea that life is finite and God is infinite, which means that life has a beginning and an end, where god has always existed and will continue to always exist. No matter what happens in life people will always die but God will live on, for he is infinitely more powerful than anything he has created. They both use the idea of greater power in the way that God is an all-powerful creator/designer that possesses perfect traits, and his perfect attributes promote his existence. However, both theories run into trouble when faced with atheist because both theories will be rejected. Atheist strongly reject the existence of God, because there is no objective proof to state that there is such a God that exist. Just because the proofs don’t prove the existence of God it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist, it just means that the proof doesn’t explain the existence of God. You can still appeal to the existence of God by things like religious experiences. With that being said there is more to God than just believing and both of these arguments are trying to reinforce that God does exist through the proof of their