Since the beginning of humanity, religion has always been an issue at the forefront of almost all societies and has long been a controversial subject. Ever since people started to really think about philosophy, there have always been philosophers who tried to prove or disprove the existence of God using their own argument. It's almost impossible to make a foolproof argument no matter which side you choose, which is why almost every generation or time period has its own counterargument to the previous example. Although there are intelligent points of view on both sides of the idea that will be analyzed, I do not believe that anyone has yet proven with a completely intellectually valid argument that God exists as he has been described. The last part about the exact parameters of God is exactly what makes this concept of God so difficult to prove. The consensus definition of God is that, regardless of religion, he is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent personal being, in addition to being the creator of the universe. The first view on this idea is that of Saint Thomas Aquinas who uses the cosmological argument to prove his way. In general, this approach relies heavily on the fact that things exist and finding out why they exist. This also includes the principle of sufficient reason which states that there must be an answer to general questions about why things exist and sometimes that everything is positive. Aquinas ironically begins his own validation of God by raising two objections to his own notion. The first is that he says that if it existed as described, then there would be no evil and since there is clearly evil in the world, God does not exist. The second objection he brings in middle of paper...... also. Hume proposes that although it seems there cannot be an infinite line of causes, if you look at the whole and realize that each connection is "like the union of several distinct counties into one kingdom". This connection is simply an act of the mind and therefore does not need an initiator because it is a circular loop instead of a straight line. The question was whether or not we can prove that God exists and, given the arguments put forward, by the way, I don't believe that at this time anyone has definitively proven the existence of God. Now, if you asked the opposite question: can we prove that God doesn't exist, I'm not sure you would go much further, but that's not what is being asked here. Regarding Thomas Aquinas and other similar philosophers, no, we cannot prove that God exists based on the knowledge and limitations we currently have..