Response to Being an Atheist

Document Type:Essay

Subject Area:Philosophy

Document 1

The multiple proofs explored by McCloskey were not contradictory at any level, therefore, providing reliable evidence on the likelihood of the existence of God. However, the teleological, cosmological, and design claims peddled by theists cannot be exhaustively used as a true pointer of God’s existence based on McCloskey objections, which are equally debatable. According to “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence” a presentation by Foreman, it is arguable that McCloskey might have taken a totally misguided interpretation in his counterarguments. Maybe if he considered contextualizing the proofs; he would have possibly come up with different views. McCloskey starts by contradicting the ideas explored in the cosmological argument. The premise argues that the universe exists because God exists; thus, justifying that the world was created by a being or thing that is all powerful. On the contrary, McCloskey writes “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being” (McCloskey 51). Therefore, arguing that the earthly creatures are not a validation God’s existence. Evans and Manis suggest that there exist contingent beings that depend on external power for them to be in existence and there are necessary beings, which exits without the validity of others (Evans and Manis 73). The law of causation proposes that something that was not created must have been responsible for the universe we have today. Based on this premise, the evidence that God exists is the universe and the creatures therein. Contrary to McCloskey, there is a world surrounding him, whereby there must be a creator, which is God in reference to the cosmological concept.

Sign up to view the full document!

The cosmological argument, according to McCloskey “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” (McCloskey 51). The claim sets limits to the assumptions and imaginations purported by the cosmological premise. The cosmological concept purports that the existence of contingent beings is pegged on an all-powerful force. The existence of the universe depends upon the creator, which happens to be God. On the face value, the cosmological argument has no basis to be singled out as evidence to the concept that a supreme being exists. The final paragraph on page 77 of the Philosophy of Religion by Evan and Manis says that cosmological argument “hardly constitutes more than an entering wedge into the knowledge of God” (Evan and Manis 77). Therefore, contrary to McCloskey’s statement, the premise can only be used as the ground on which God’s existence can be explored; however, the extensive knowledge of God is vital in supporting the cosmological premise.

Sign up to view the full document!

This implies that McCloskey must first understand the multifaceted nature of God so that to be in a position of appreciating the contributions made by cosmological argument. Even though it is not indisputable, the example plays a central role in providing evidence that the world had a creator. Evans and Manis suggest that human beings utilize their intelligence to create machines used to carry out various duties. A well-thought process is essential in making an intelligent design and bringing different resources together to get an end product. Equally, items that exist naturally are a combination of parts that are designed to accomplish a particular objective. It is possible; therefore, that many items in the universe are as a result of an assemblage of elements by an all-powerful being. Using this claim as evidence of the non-existence of God is convincing to some extent.

Sign up to view the full document!

On the contrary, the cosmological argument does not limit itself to a universe where evil is non-existent and perfection is the order of the day (Evans and Manis 163). Equally, the teleological argument can be viewed from the cosmological argument point of view where the knowledge of God is primary in the understanding His existence. Therefore, an in-depth exploration of the character of a supreme being is crucial for all theists that are inclined towards supporting the argument herein. The primary objection peddled by McCloskey against theism is the presence of evil and imperfection in the world. It is impossible for people to always do the right thing, but it is necessary to find a balance between good and evil. Sometimes a person might think he is involving himself or herself in the right thing, which might be wrong to another person.

Sign up to view the full document!

Therefore, it is important for society to have rules that keep people in check. McCloskey believes that atheism is more comforting than theism. According to him, pain is unpleasant and a perfect divine ought to have eliminated it. org, n. d. Web February 28, 2013. Evans, C. Stephen and Manis R.

Sign up to view the full document!

From $10 to earn access

Only on Studyloop

Original template