Analysis Of Mccloskey 's ' On Being An Atheist

In Kelly James Clark’s Article “Without Evidence or Argument”, Clark argues that belief in God, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. Clark’s argument is against W.K. Clifford’s article “The Ethics of Belief”, in which Clifford claims that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence (139). Throughout Kelly Clark’s article he states many things that support his conclusion of belief without evidence or argument, however, my paper will only discuss what Clark says on p.139 starting with the paragraph “The first problem with Clifford’s…” and the following paragraph, ending with the words “...to see why.”

God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist The existence or otherwise of God has attracted a seeming countless debates from all classes of people mainly academics, comprising theologians, scientists and philosophers, not to mention laypersons. Consequently, this singular topic has generated many publications and reviews. Of particular interest are the two opposing views brilliantly presented by William Lane Craig, a popular Christian philosopher and apologist who is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor of Philosophy at Dartmouth College. There had been intense rounds of debate on the subject, prominent among which were the one at Dartmouth in 1999 and another at Wooddale Church in 2000. William Lane Craig believes, and firmly too, that God exists while Walter Sinnott-Armstrong would always want to convince his listeners that He does not. These opposing views and more are taken up in the 2003 popular and unique book, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. The uniqueness of the book, and in fact, its greatest strength can be found in the fact that it was co-authored by opponents, a christian and an atheist. What makes the book more interesting is that it represents the results of an actual debate, where each side not only presents its succinct and polite views but has the chance to actively respond to its opponent with some succinct theological and philosophical sophistication. While they arrive

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

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

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.

Typically, cosmological arguments occur in two different phases. The first phase’s purpose is to provide the premise that there is a ‘first cause’ or an

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?

An age-old debate that has existed in religious studies concerns which argument for the existence of God is the strongest. The existence of God is pervasive throughout the world, although the means with which people attempt to prove His existence varying in significant (and sometimes contrasting) ways. Although there have been myriad methods for proving God's existence, a central dispute concerns whether or not to use a rational approach or a more Biblically-grounded approach. This paper examines three theories that are germane to the rational approach the Five Proofs issued by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, the central premise of St. Anselm's Proslogion, and Augustine's premise from his canonical text City of God. After discussing these three arguments, two Christological arguments are discussed, namely Richard Bauckham's thesis from God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (1999) and William Lane Craig's argument from "The Resurrection of Jesus" (Date Unknown). Following a description of these theories, this paper argues in favor of the rational approach because it is more systematic in its justification for God's existence.

God’s existence cannot be proved nor disproved, but this is an attempt to refute the existence of this all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being through an analysis of arguments and theories that try to prove or insinuate His reality.

In the Article “On Being an Atheist”, McCloskey refers to the arguments defending the existence of God as “proofs”. He also believes that because none of the arguments can absolutely prove the existence of God, that we should deny them all and the existence of God (McCloskey, 1968). Foreman addresses this dilemma in his presentation “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence.” Foreman states that there is no absolute proof of God’s existence but there are many things in the universe that are best explained by the existence of God. All arguments in the defense of the existence of

The following is a response to H.J. McCloskey’s article, On Being an Atheist. This paper will argue against some of the main points that McCloskey presents, as well as showing strong evidence to refute the claims that God doesn’t exist. The following will challenge McCloskey’s cosmological and teleological arguments, and it will challenge McCloskey’s view that God cannot exist because evil is present in the world. The first argument that this paper will challenge, however, is McCloskey’s statement of theists trying to prove the case for God.

For many years, man has pondered whether one can in fact prove the existence of God. We have covered three arguments in class including ontological, cosmological, and argument of design. The argument of design says that in order for things to come about, there has to be a designer. The cosmological argument says that everything has a cause and at some point, we must come to a First Cause. This cause would be God. And finally, the ontological argument says that God is a necessary being, for reasons that will be explained later. I believe that none of these arguments provide concrete proof for the existence of God.

I do not find the three arguments I analyzed satisfactory for the existence of God. The existence of God simply cannot be proven. Regardless of how strong a person’s faith is, or how many miracles they claim to have witnessed, God can only ever be a possibility.

According to St. Aquinas, there are 5 ways to prove God exists. These are the argument from motion, the argument from efficient causes, the argument from possibility and necessity, the argument from graduation of being, and the argument of design. One of his most compelling arguments is the argument of “Possibility and Necessity.” This proof states that some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being. In this paper, I will explain this proof in detail, argue why I don't agree with this proof, and why William Paley offers a more convincing approach as to why God exists.