St. Anselm’s reply to this was that this was a bad analogy because god is a unique idea of a being of which none higher can be thought. The Cosmological argument is the argument that steams from the existence of the universe or cosmos can only mean that there is a certain creator of the cosmos. The cosmos would not exist without a creator and that creator is looked upon as a god. The Teleological argument is the design argument. The objects of the world would come from a comic design. That cosmic design then has to come from a cosmic designee. That designee would have to be god. Now a person would have to decide on whether or not we believe theism to be a rational thought. We know that there is no way that reason alone can support enough evidence to prove that a perfect being outside this realm exists, and essentially that believing in theism means your believing in a belief. Is theism rational? With the evidence given for and against those that say no, you would be considered an atheist or agnostic. Being an atheist you would have no belief in god. An agnostic means that you don’t have t belief either way. There is not enough evidence to support a decision either for or against. I would consider myself to be an agnostic. I don’t really believe that god exists for sure, but I know for sure that one doesn’t exist either. ...
