[233] for the arguments is not less intelligent than that group which works against the arguments. So if such a split occurs between the GREATEST, again and again, through the whole histoy of philosophy, one must try an explanation for this phenomenon and cannot simply continue arguing or, even less, sitting down and saying: "Now let them fight with each other; it is all nonsense anyhow." But one must try to find out what is the motive in the one or the other way. There are three main types of arguments: the ontological,^a the cosmological ^band the teleological^c types. The ontological type of philosophy arguing for the existence of God speaks of the immediate certainty of something ultimate or unconditional, and derives from this immediate certainty the existence of God. The cosmological argument looks at the nature of reality as we encounter it, and its finitude and transitoriness and contingency, and derives from THAT the necessity of the existence of one God. And the teleological argument argues from the fact that there is MEANING in reality, even in nature, that there are meaningful structures, and derives from THIS the existence of God. Now l would say the following thing: These three arguments---which are only three TYPES of arguments because they are valid in many ways---are all TRUE in the DESCRIPTIVE part, and they are all WRONG in the CONCLUDING part. Let me explain this. They are true insofar as they point to the human situation; they are wrong insofar as they make a conclusion from the human situation to the existence of God. First of all, God is beyond essence and existence---one cannot say "existence" of Him in any way. God is being itself, but not one existing being. Beside this, the following can be said: the ontological argument ^dis right when it says that man stands between his own finitude^e, of which he is aware, and the infinite from which he is excluded, although he knows that he belongs to it. This does not give us any right to make a conclusion to the existence of a highest being called God. But it gave all those who DEFENDED the ontological argument