Mccloskey Response Paper

To reply to McCloskey’s claim that there could not be a God due to the amount of evil there is I would first acknowledge this claim. At first I too agreed with this claim that how could someone so great and loving let so much evil and pain into the lives of people who do not deserve it. Simply because I did not understand how God could be so great and let evil into this world. Since then certain truths about theology have been explained to me so I can understand the good of God verses the evil found in this world.

The issue that is unjustifiable in McCloskey’s argument as proofs is he dismisses the favor of God’s existence when the standard of “one hundred percent certainty is not reached” (Forman,2012). Instead of centering one focus on proving God’s existence, you must seek an accumulative case approach to explain the best case to God’s existence, which is streams of evidence to develop a strong case (Forman,2012). Proof and certainty are not always a reliable possibility, especially when it comes to our senses or scientific beliefs (Forman,2012). According to Evans and Manis “the failure to produce a proof of God’s existence does not necessarily mean that no one has any justified beliefs about God” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 61). The cosmological and teleological argument provides substantial amount of expositions for God existence meanwhile McCloskey’s arguments contradict themselves on the standard of proof that he

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

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."

HJ McCloskey is a proclaimed atheist. He presents lots of arguments including the belief of why there is no God. He also says that atheism is a more comfortable belief. He states that it is impossible for a higher power to create an imperfect world. McCloskey thinks that even if there was a maker than how can people be comforted by Him instead of blaming him for creating an imperfect world with evil and imperfections.

In some ways, it is refreshing to read H.J. McCloskey's article, "On Being an Atheist". Most people assume atheists are simple nihilists who do not subscribe to any sort of convictions or beliefs. The author's text, however, refutes this conventional viewpoint by producing several reasons for embracing atheism, many of which are studied and labored counterarguments to typical claims of theists. The most important part of this essay is found in its opening paragraphs, in which the author makes a very prudent point in explaining the fact that most theists do not require elaborate proofs or empirical evidence to substantiate their beliefs in a divinity. Those who do have not completely subscribed to faith, but to testaments of man's deductive prowess, which should not be confused with faith. However, the author makes a number of points that he believes alludes to fallacies in theism that those well versed in theism can handily refute.

Even though this one argument only talks about or shows us existence of the universe and necessary being we must not forget about so many other important ones. If someone were to accept this as a conclusion to accepting God, they would only want to know more. This is only a tiny piece that allows us just a glimpse of God's knowledge. Let’s take a look at the McCloskey’s second argument, the teleological argument.

The Case for Faith, was written by Lee Strobel who at the time was an outspoken atheist. Strobel set out on a mission to disprove the Christian faith. Along the way, as he gathered information he was slowly convinced that there was truth to the religion. In result of his findings Strobel published three books to help explain his findings. In this book he discusses objections that arise in the minds of believers. Strobel discusses eight different objection, thoroughly explains them, and provides deep information to help resolve these objections. Some of the issues that he touched on are tilled; Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot, A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell, and I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be a Christian. Within each obligation Strobel includes Bible verses and professional explanations on objection at hand. The most beneficial sections are those where he gives simple analogies that can benefit anybody no matter where one is in the faith journey.

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?

First and foremost, the cosmological argument does not necessarily make an argument for God’s existence. This particular argument leads us to a first cause. It is simply saying that everything that exists needs a cause. According to Manis and Evans, God is not a contingent being. Atheists argue that everything has a cause or an origin but if God had an Origin then he wouldn’t be God. The cosmological argument is not an end all prove all to the existence of God it is merely an argument that pushes us to go deeper and to study God and the origin of the universe more intensively. McCloskey attempts to dismiss this argument altogether but for the previous reasons mentioned he is misguided when he states that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate and all-powerful, all perfect, uncaused

In reading McCloskey’s article it’s obvious he is searching for definitive proof that God exists. He is unable to find proof and therefore comes to the conclusion that God must not exist. He believes that the existence of evil discredits arguments made in support of believing in God. There is not one single thing in this world that we can know definitively without looking at the evidence. You have to look at the whole picture. Just like in a criminal investigation, the crime scene investigators gather evidence they are not looking for just the bullets or just the body. They look and gather all the data before coming to any conclusions. We will discuss

A last point about the issue of abhorrence; on what grounds is McCloskey asserting an activity is malicious? How is he deciding his ethical qualities? Without a doubt he doesn't trust good values are relative, for he is avowing the affliction of blameless individuals as a goal standard. Yet on agnosticism one can't do this. On the off chance that the agnostic is correct and there is no God then Dostoyevsky remark that everything is allowed is approved. Be that as it may, then insidious and great would stop to exist. How then might you be able to lead a good, or for this situation more agreeable life? Profound quality is aimless in a relativistic world, so how does McCloskey accuse malicious for God? For the skeptic to be genuinely glad he must live reliably, however in the event that the agnostic did live reliably he couldn't in any way, shape or form be upbeat considering a definitive esteem, reason and importance of their live without the presence of God. Accordingly it can be seen that belief in a higher power

The question of God’s existence has been pondered by humans for centuries. There are an infinite number of different opinions, arguments, and ideas favoring for or against the idea of God. Personally, I strongly believe in God not only due to my religious affiliation, but also because of my own opinions, ideas, and experience. To begin with, the complexity of Earth and the life that has formed upon it cannot be based just on luck or chance. I believe that ultimately God, as a power, rather than a mystical being is the one created and controls the universe. Although the God and his authority are not entirely comprehensible by humans, it’s our faith as worshiper that eventually lead us to a greater understanding.

HJ McCloskey in 1968 wrote a paper that tried to argue against different Christian philosophy theories. He tried to argue against the existence of God, specifically in the Cosmological Argument and Teleological arguments. He also tries to use the existence of evil as an argument against the existence a God. His arguments ultimately show a lack of understanding. A lack of understanding of these basic christian arguments and basic Christian theology.

Although science has helped us understand something so enormous such as our universe, there is a limit to what we as human beings are able to scientifically comprehend and that limit is met when it comes to proving the existence of a god.