One of the many philosophical arguments in the book is the Ontological Argument. Ontological Argument is highly recognized as one of the most remarkable arguments ever set forth not just an argument for God’s existence but a purely analytic argument. Ontological argument was regarded as the most intriguing of all arguments for theism. It also regarded as family of arguments. This particular argument is also called “a priori” argument. This does not rely mainly on the facts on observable world. But , it tries to show that the existence of God comes from the very definition of God itself as the most perfect being without using facts. An “a priori” argument about God’s existence depends on how we define God. The point of this argument is very crucial because, if the Ontological Argument proves to be valid, it is not just the mere existence of God is established, but more significantly, also traditional attributes that theists believe God to have. Nonetheless, the Ontological argument has been influential that it has both earned numerous passionate critics and defender of various philosophical learning from the time it was advocated until today. One of them is Immanuel Kant who is believed to have delivered a fatal blow to the this argument by pointing out that “existence” is not the real predicate. The problem to say “God exists” does not tell us anything about God. The use of the word exist does not add anything new to our understanding of God. Another argument is also the Cosmological Argument. The cosmological argument is one that argues for the existence of God from certain properties of universe. The cosmological argument is widely recognized as an example of a posteriori proof. Thus it is different and can be contrasted to Ontological Argument. The most famous version of the Cosmological Argument is the one formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas in his opus, the Summa Theologiae. Thomas offered not just one but five philosophical proofs which is popularly known as the Five Ways. Another preliminary point that needs to be mentioned in the Cosmological Argument is to bear in mind the general strategy employed to arrive at its conclusion. As we are about to see in the version of St. Thomas, the specific way of reasoning that is used is to begin with a bare fact of a concrete phenomenon of the world. Out of this particular datum that is obvious to our own sensible experience, the argument will then provoke us to search for an explanation. Teleological argument has something to do with direction or destiny. Teleological argument is called as such because it points to the fact that many things and processes in the universe seems as though they were designed to fulfill purposeful ends or goals. It attempts to derive the existence of God from the premise that the world exhibits intelligent purpose and proceeds to the conclusion that there must be or probably is a divine intelligent being, which caused the purpose or order that it manifests in nature. The Teleological Argument has also been the most theistic arguments tending to evoke spontaneous assent, the simple and sophisticated alike. The most famous exposition of the Teleological Argument is William Paley. In his work, Paley popularized the argument from design with his concrete illustration of human artifact. This is the watch that he compared to the world. The argument from design, primarily based on analogy between the watch and the world, come to be particularly known as Argument from Analogy. The analogical argument from design consists of drawing an analogy between natural object and man-made artifacts. Here, Paley argued for the existence of God based on an analogy between the universe and a machine. Paley’s proof for the existence of God begins with what we can readily observe in the sensible world of natural phenomena. More specifically, his own version of the teleological argument makes use of an analogy or comparison. In the history of religious philosophy, there is one very distinctive approach to God that tries to understand, on a more reflective level, this concrete and specific aspect of man’s moral experience—that of conscience. This one very distinctive path to God that is anchored on the central idea that conscience is the voice of God was fully expressed and richly developed by the English writer and philosopher-theologian, Cardinal John Henry Newman in his last major work—An essay in Aid of a Grammar Of Assent. He called it argument from Conscience. A personal, spontaneous and emotional experience of God that is innate and open to all men and women. For Newman, faith in the existence of God should be grounded and expressed in the concrete, the living and in the particularity of the actual life of the believer. Religious belief is not the result of logical arguments such as the classical rational demonstrations or proofs of God’s existence. Assent to the being of God should be real and not just notional. The being of God should not just be understood and comprehended by the mind, but more importantly, must be experienced concretely and personally. Newman wanted to show that faith is still reasonable without being justified by reason; that faith is certain even if it is not totally comprehended by the mind, and that we can still reasonably believe in the things that we cannot reasonably prove. In the history of philosophy, there is one argument that follows a different path in determining the validity and soundness of a religious claim regarding God’s existence. This is the pragmatic Argument for God’s existence. As its name suggests, this argument is based on practical consequences or benefits that one can get out of believing God. The pragmatic argument for God appeals to “common sense” by letting us see the definite advantages or benefits that we can gain if we believe that there is God. Since there is no convincing proof either for or against God, the wise move is to find out which side is the better option in terms of its practical consequences. The most famous pragmatic argument from God’s existence in the history of philosophy is that of the French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal. Pascal developed a kind of an amusing argument in the form of a wager. In it, Pascal explicitly acknowledged the fact that we cannot know whether God exist or not. Nevertheless, he is convinced that it is in our best interest to believe that there is one that than not to believe. The last argument is the Phenomenological argument. The contemporary American Philosopher John Smith attempts to specifically explore the nature and ground of this particular kind of experience, and how can it serve as the basis for a belief in God. Smith begins by making a distinction between the “Holy”, which is something different from what is ordinary that we found in life, and the “profane”, which is always there thus readily available, its presence can be taken for granted. Though the existence of God is a big mystery to some, there are still some people who have no doubts about it. Through the arguments of the philosophers, we are given a choice on what to believe. However, the number of people who presented such arguments of God’s existence almost equates the number of chief critics against the validity of such arguments. It is up to us on which side to choose. I will now present these arguments and its opposing factors.