Essay about Response to an Athiest

In the argument with McCloskey about using “proofs” to establish a case for Gods existence I would first agree with McCloskey that we should not use “proofs” for Gods existence since “proofs” cannot be a 100% proof of Gods existence. But there are two arguments that can help explain the existence of God. The first is the best explanation approach which is the best explanation for the things we witness. Another classical argument is cumulative case approach, in this approach we use more than one argument to make a case for Gods existence. Both of these approaches to the existence of God is easier to understand than just the “proof” argument. We must also understand the defeaters of the arguments and also that the God of the Bible is

In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more reasonable and comfortable belief than that of Christianity.   McCloskey argued against the three theistic proofs, which are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design.   He pointed out the existence of evil in the world that God made.   He also pointed out that it is irrational to live by faith. According to McCloskey, proofs do not necessarily play a vital role in the belief of God.  Page 62 of the article states that "most theists do not come to believe in God as a basis for religious belief, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors."  However, he feels that as far as proofs serve theists,

As regards the cosmological argument itself, McCloskey states that "all we entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." (p.63) This is indeed true, there is no reason to necessarily infer a God person, however; the inference is of the nature that suggests (hence the term infer) a cause of such magnitude that it is practically God-like. Moreover, his words do not disprove the rational of a God. Entitlement not to call this cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny calling this cause or considering this cause to be "God."

The argument discussed is one that has an unending list of contingent beings, all of which need a cause for existence. According to the article, McCloskey assumes that the argument calls for an uncaused cause to start an infinite number of contingent beings. McCloskey believes that each contingent being simply exists with an infinite number of causes that eventually lead back to a case of chance. In “Philosophy of Religion” by Stephen Evans, Evans refers to this way of thinking as a “brute fact.” According to Evans, by claiming this stance would turn the partial argument into a whole argument and concurrently, “this will require the defender of the argument to claim that the contingency of the whole of the universe can validly be inferred from the contingency of all its parts.” Where McCloskey’s ignorance further takes a violent curve against acquiring knowledge about the beginning of the universe connects to his argument is when he said “This means that the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot exist.” What he is alluding to, and is also the focal point of his disapproval of theism, is that humans do not have the right to claim that a being created the universe. If an atheist can claim that there is no such existence of God, then why is it that a theist cannot claim the existence of a God?

McCloskey in his article, "On Being An Atheist" claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief “have no weight”. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity

In 1968 H.J. McCloskey wrote an article for the journal Question called “On Being an Atheist.” He presents three arguments for why his belief in atheism is more comforting than theism. He regards the arguments as “proofs” and intends to prove the inadequacy of each proof. By comparing the three proofs separately and then together he is able to provide different angles which enables new thoughts. While the proofs don’t stand strong by themselves the three together persuade the argument that there is a specific Creator, or Christian God. As a Naturalist struggles without explanation McCloskey struggles to comprehend the reason so many put their faith in someone they can’t fully understand. Through evaluating each proof thoroughly McCloskey is

While theology may take God 's existence as necessary on the basis of faith, or discovery, many philosophers have thought it’s possible to prove by reason that there must be a God. The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design simply states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things display elements of design in their order, consistency, unity and pattern. It is based on observations of the order in the universe and the natural world, to conclude that it is

Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell states that because it is so unlikely that our universe was randomly generated, there must have been an intelligent designer. Betty and Cordell point to the calculations of many renowned scientist to show that our unique universe could not have existed if the slightest detail were any different than the way it is now. They state, “At this point we must ask ourselves what is easier to imagine and thus to believe; that the cosmos’ entire history should have arisen from this self-creating and self-explaining surd; or that a pre-existing mind and power of vast magnitude should have created the ingredients of the universe and triggered it at the Big Bang? The second alternative seems a little bit more likely… (Betty and Cordell 223).” This argument goes off of inference of the best explanation in the sense that logically it makes more sense and easier to believe that an intelligent designer created the universe rather than a random explosion of matter that started to expand and our universe was formed. This point also creates an objection though, where did God come from and how did he create everything ex nihilo, or out of nothing. The theist should properly respond to this objection by pointing to the definition of God, a wholly good and omnipotent being. So by our human perspective God or the intelligent designer should not be able to create himself, but remember by omnipotent he can do all, for he is all powerful so there is

The cosmological contention for God's presence is The world couldn't exist all alone so there more likely than not been a first cause that brought it into being. This first cause is God. On the other hand put another way, the universe couldn't simply exist all alone, somebody or something probably made it. This reason for the universe is God.

My favorite argument for the existence of God is Thomas Aquinas’ fourth cosmological argument, which is based on our conviction that things can be quantified. If something can be sweet-sweeter-sweetest or big-bigger-biggest, there must be an absolute maximum by which to set the standard to judge all the rest. (Highfield, 2008). I’ve always felt that nothing comes from nothing. Everything has to have come from something. If our world is the happenstance of some cosmic collision, where did the colliding matters come from? There must be a Creator who is greater than creation, i.e. God, “the uncreated creator of the world.” (Highfield, 2008, p. 94). Like Pascal, I’ve always felt it better to believe in God’s existence and risk only the loss of

McCloskey addresses the arguments as “proofs” stating that he doesn’t acknowledge them as anything more or less. This is because no argument is bullet proof one hundred percent and lacks definite evidence. The idea is that

In McCloskey’s (1968) article “On Being an Atheist”, the arguments for the existence of God are rebutted and some compelling reasons are given in order to enlighten some other atheists who might be struggling to defend their beliefs. Firstly, McCloskey (1968) opens his discussion by asserting that the three main proofs (teleological, cosmological, and argument from design) of God’s existence are not the basic nor the right proofs with which to arrive at a “vague” (p.51) conclusion that states the existence of a necessary being. These proofs have not been considered by the serious theologians, but instead, they have been the excuse of the parson (McCloskey, 1968). However, McCloskey misses the point made by such arguments by assuming that such defenses are a definite proof of the existence of God. To regard something as a proof, one must know that the argument being made is certain and incorrigible, but the arguments made by the theist are said to be defeasible, not incorrigible or certain (Foreman, 2012). This mean that the arguments can be regarded as true unless a defeater, which if it were true, would defeat the argument (Foreman, 2012). Then, if the classical arguments used by the theist to advocate for God’s existence are defeasible and not “proofs” as McCloskey claims, and no defeater has been shown to be true, there is no need to abandon such arguments.

In the article, “On Being an Atheist”, H.J. McCloskey discusses the reasons of why he believes being an atheist is a more acceptable than Christianity. McCloskey believes that atheism is a more rational belief versus having a God who allows people to suffer so he can have the glory. He believes to live in this world, you must be comfortable. The introduction of his article, he implements an overview of arguments given by the theist, which he introduces as proofs. He claims that the proofs do not create a rationalization to believe that God exists. He provides 3 theist proofs, which are Cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the argument of design. He also mentions the presence of evil in the world. He focuses on the existence

McCloskey mostly insults the theistic opinion as one of ignorance and ambiguity. Referring to the believers of God, he say ‘’they do not think hard enough nor far enough about the difficulty of an uncaused reason, who has to be a unavoidably existing being to prove that the argument is far less conclusive than it appears to be at first sight. In addition, his reference of theists as being ignorant is clearly

The question of God’s existence has been challenged by many philosophers and non-philosophers alike over the years. If I am honest with myself, during many hard times I have questioned Gods existence myself. Arguments that have been used to support the existence of a divine being includes; the cosmological argument and the theological argument. However, there are some who oppose these arguments and philosopher H.J. McCloskey is among this group. In the article “On Being an Atheist” written by H.J. McCloskey, he argues that both these arguments are false and insufficient as it relates to “proof” of God’s existence. McCloskey believes that without proper proof, we must completely dismiss the idea of God’s existence. In his well-written article, he offers a few reasons why he believes that atheism is a much more comfortable belief versus, a belief in a God who allows the suffering of his people. He suggested that the problem of evil and the fact that evil exists means that God could not exist. McCloskey urges that people should just help each other rather than, placing their faith in a God that is clearly imperfect due to the imperfect world that he has created. Credible as McCloskey may be, I saw many errors in his theory. It is my opinion that his attempt to define God is completely unsound, and his philosophy is at best debatable. In this response paper, I will be carefully