and originating intelligence and will.

d) The Argument from Being: Ontological.

Man has an idea of an infinite and perfect Being. From whence this
idea? From finite and imperfect beings like ourselves? Certainly
not. Therefore this idea argues for the existence of an infinite
and perfect Being: such a Being must exist, as a person, and not
a mere thought.

e) The Moral Argument; Anthropological.

Man has an intellectual and a moral nature, hence his Creator must
be an intellectual and moral Being, a Judge, and Lawgiver. Man has
an emotional nature; only a Being of goodness, power, love, wisdom
and holiness could satisfy such a nature, and these things denote
the existence of a personal God.

Conscience in man says: "Thou shalt," and "Thou shalt not," "I
ought," and "I ought not." These mandates are not self-imposed. They
imply the existence of a Moral Governor to whom we are responsible.
Conscience,--there it is in the breast of man, an ideal Moses
thundering from an invisible Sinai the Law of a holy Judge. Said
Cardinal Newman: "Were it not for the voice speaking so clearly in
my conscience and my heart, I should be an atheist, or a pantheist,
when I looked into the world." Some things are wrong, others
right: love is right, hatred is wrong. Nor is a thing right because
it pleases, or wrong because it displeases. Where did we get this
standard of right and wrong? Morality is obligatory, not optional.
Who made is obligatory? Who has a right to command my life? We must