Ontological argument
The ontological argument is a priori argument, which means that it can be related to something that we know through a sense of understanding rather than by experience. So then the Ontological argument is based off of reason alone. Starting with the definition of God: There is no great being OR nothing more perfect than God.

And if this is true then believing in God seems to be worthwhile because there would technically be nothing more powerful then Him. And one would not be able to prove that there is something even higher then God because what it higher then perfection itself? Nothing. 1. I am however wondering how am I going to give an objection of perfection, I mean yes there is no way you could prove whether or not this is simply true, its all based off of reason alone. Its essentially a hypothesis with no way to test it.

Pascal’s wager
- The wager is an argument that says its better for one to believe in the existence of God and live their life as a Christian and end up in Heaven as opposed to not living the life of a Christian and ending up living an eternal hell because in the end you lose less if you were to believe then if you were not to. The wager can be shown in four boxes. Box 1 lets say you if you were to believe and there is a God, then great, you’re in Heaven. Box two says even if you believe in God and there is no God at the end, well at least you know you lived your life as a decent human being and your conscience is clean, you don’t really lose much. Box three however says if you don’t believe and there IS a God, well now you’ve just ruined chances at getting into heaven, you lose a lot. And lastly box four says what if there was not a God and you chose not to believe, well