If you are going to argue about a gaaark, everyone must first understand and agree what a gaaark actually is.
This particular question has preoccupied some of the best minds in history. The way they approached the question was in the following manner.
*A reality that transcends time and space
*The ground of being and value
*A reality worthy of manís worship
Notice that God is not defined as a being, rather, as a reality. The reason is that a being connotes a something existing in spatiotemporal understanding, alongside other spatiotemporal somethings. Philosophers who have believed that God exists, and that his existence could be proved, have not intended to assert the existence of a being occupying some particular region of time-space. They have meant to assert, rather, the existence of a reality that is not subject to these categories. Hence, God is not a being, but a reality.
The term ground, has been employed by Philosophers when talking about cause. A cause is a spatiotemporal something, that stands in a certain relation to something else that is called itís effect. As God, a reality, stands outside of spatiotemporal consideration, so ground is adopted in place of cause.
There have been five primary arguments put forward in relation to proofs in support of Godís existence:
The first two carry the majority of the intellectual firepower, with the moral argument tending to support the first two, rather than creating a new a separate line of reasoning. I shall be looking at, and analysing the first two arguments, the first, comes from St Anslem.