Arguments for the existence of God are just the first step in a natural theology (philosophy of God). The discussion isn’t supposed to be over once you have established the existence of the Designer/Creator (or First Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, etc.) – it is just the necessary basis upon which we can begin to discuss the nature of God, what God is like, God’s attributes, etc. Here is where we prove that this God, which exists, is the monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.
Indeed, a philosopher like St. Thomas Aquinas and a philosopher like Benedictus de Spinoza (a pantheist/atheist) are in total agreement at the point of “Therefore, God exists.” It is from there, getting into the nature of God, that they part ways radically. This is why arguments for God’s existence, in and of themselves, are far less important than philosophical discussions of God’s nature. Unless you have this subsequent expansion, you haven’t really done anything of massive importance. You haven’t proven that our God exists.
After “God EXISTS,” you must show that “GOD exists.”
