Below are some similarities with my personal beliefs. First, God exists because the existence of any other thing is because of God. Every dependent thing has a clarification for its existence. For that reason, if the universe has an explanation of its existence then it must be a personal being. The world is classified as an unexpected thing.
By the grace of God. If we are able to take things and apply what we know with the other information that we are able to ascertain, then we will begin to understand that Clark’s argument is necessary and true. Clark’s Cosmological Argument is often called the first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing.
Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent.
Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury proposed this argument and later Rene Descartes deployed a similar argument) Idea of God - Everyone has an idea of God. Even atheists believe in a god in some sense. If you can conceive a God, then logic says there must be a God, or else where did the idea come from? 5. General Revelation (Romans 1:18-20) Knowledge of God and spiritual matters discovered through nature, philosophy, and reasoning.
This method is supportive of Descartes’s will to emphasis on doubt and question anything that can be doubted. Thus, he demonstrates the presence of God through a chain of consequences ‘Causal proof’. Because of the law of conservation of matter, the cause must equal the effect, if we have an idea of God than this idea is the effect and God is the cause (Gaarder, 2003). Therefore, the idea we have of God is an innate idea that we did not produce ourselves. Accordingly, he expresses that as a result of his innate thoughts of God, it only makes sense that it be God who "is the reason for this thought".
When it comes to knowing and learning the religions of the world one must approach them with a critical mind. One cannot simply just believe every religion and know have their own view points. David Van Biema presents his ideas about Christianity and Jesus in “The Gospel Truth?”. Van Biema’s main point is about how “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John… is notoriously unreliable,” . Van Biema writes about how one cannot be completely sure about whether to believe if Jesus actually said what is written in the bible, he continues to say that Jesus may even be an “imaginative theological construct” .
From these roots, the debate emerged regarding whether the Logos or Word of God was in fact coeternal with God. While Alexander held firmly that the Word existed eternally with God, Arius debated that the Word was not coeternal. While this appears to be somewhat of a nuance or minor detail, the Arian position goes further to deduce that if the Word was not coeternal with God, Jesus was the first creation of God. This position does nothing short of shaking the entire foundation of the Christian
Kierkegaard believes that the existence of God could not be proven by reasons. However, he did not think that it was rational to believe in God, but to have faith in God. In Kierkegaard reading I disagree in his perspective because I believe that a person should have faith to believe in God and his existence. I also disagree in how he believes in faith of God, but not in God itself. Even thought, he said God’s existence can’t be proven, yet he still said “God’s existence I mean that I propose to prove that the unknown, which exist is God” (page 421).
Nestorianism, named after Nestorius, was built on the denial that Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time; his explanation was something like a split personality between the human and the divine nature. The two natures could cannot coexist at the same time, however, they can switch back and forth; although Jesus has both natures inside on him, they could not both at the same time. Eutychianism was named after Eutyches, a man who opposed Nestorianism, who believed that Jesus’ divinity and human nature combined to create a new, third thing. He taught, “Christ’s humanity was so united with his divinity that it was not the same as ours” (Quash and Ward, 41). If Jesus was not able to be both man and God at the same time, he would not have the ability to save us from our sins.
Before I start my points in this argument, let me introduce myself to you. I am neither an atheist nor a Catholic, but a Born Again Christian. I have a religion, but at the same time doubt the existence of God. I do not totally refute the idea of God in our lives, but I really wonder if He exists and by the use of reasoning and evidences, I will present to you my stand about His existence. I will start my points in this argument by, first, opposing the evidences and reasons why we should believe that God exists and second, by pointing one of many reasons why we should believe that God does not exist.