Arguments Against Atheism

In his discussion of the argument from design, which he links with teleological principles, the author refers to the concept of design in a way that alludes to the conviction that there are certain divine manifestations in the world that are so perfect that they must revolve around a grand architect who conceived them to be that way. Therefore, he says that proving such an argument requires "indisputable examples of design or purpose" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 64). However, this standard of indisputability that McCloskey is holding this argument to,

Brown, Neil. "The New Atheism and The Existence of God.” Compass, 46, no. 3, 2-5. Kensington, Australia: Compass, Spring 2012.

Based on the article, McCloskey's view of faith is based on Tillich's definition of faith as "being ultimately concerned, as claiming truth for its concern, and as involving commitment, courage, and the taking of risk." (P. 65)  In response, McCloskey holds that this 'risk' is reckless and irrational due to the problematic nature of evil.  The mere existence of evil in the world suggests that an all-perfect being is not perfect, otherwise creation would have no flaws.   In effect, he is using the same argument from design and the teleological argument - that from the effects you can determine the cause.  So if creation is flawed by these evils, and creation goes back to God, then God is flawed.  McCloskey does not continue to prove or disprove any valid reason for accepting or denying God's existence.  In effect, he is guilty of

McCloskey claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” Discuss this standard of “indisputability” which he calls a “very conclusive objection.” Is it reasonable?

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?

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

McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e. a necessarily existing being].”

In the teleological argument, McCloskey argues “to get proof going genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968). McCloskey is basically stating in his argument that all examples must be indisputable, or they have no ground to stand on. I disagree. Go back to the beginning when we talked about the only thing that can actually be proven is mathematics. Regardless of what you are trying to prove you must have multiple pieces of evidence, but even then they might not be indisputable. I do not believe anything is ever one-hundred percent disputable. So, I don’t believe that McCloskey’s argument is a very conclusive one. Let’s look at an example.

To say that “something” is a proof one must understand that this “something” must have been tested and with sufficient evidence, in order to produce a belief in its truth. An argument on the other hand is not so. An argument can be a discussion involving differing points of view. Moreover, mainly an argument is a person’s attempt to persuade or present evidence from their point of view. Nevertheless, McCloskey makes claims from arguments as though they are proofs. He then gives reasons as to why these arguments are not adequate enough to be presented as proofs. But McCloskey has somehow in his mind attempted to present arguments as proofs in order to validate his personal argument and push his claims as opposition to the Cosmological and Teleological arguments. But these arguments were not meant to be used as proofs of Gods existence but to merely shed insight and to persuade or something one may consider as a basis for their belief. McCloskey does not allow himself to be persuaded because he is considering these arguments as proofs which

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

Atheists often insist there is no evidence for the existence of God while maintaining religious faith is fundamentally irrational. This paper will examine the Kalām Cosmological Argument (KCA), demonstrating that it offers strong evidence for the existence of God, thereby providing a rational foundation for the Christian faith.

The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God. The Problem of Evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good God. The argument from evil is the atheistic argument that the existence of such evil cannot be reconciled with, and so disproves, the existence of such a God. The evil in the world is not God’s fault, God gave us freedom of choice, and free agents sometimes choose to abuse their freedom, to do wrong. A generic statement of the cosmological argument is that everything that exists has a cause of its existence therefore, the evil that exists in the world must have a cause. Without God, we cannot explain the universe and there would still be evil in the

McCloskey further argued the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against divine design or divine purpose. While the cosmological argument has limitations regarding his argument as mentioned prior, he does seem to contradict himself when he says, “the first cause must be explained as an uncaused cause, otherwise we are left with an infinite regress of causes” (51). This implies that evil which McCloskey does believe in may have been from

No matter if an individual is a theist or atheist, he or she has at some time asked why God would permit or generate evil. The reply is as intricate as responding to the question of reality. If McCloskey anticipates getting proof of why God permits evil of any kind, there is little proof that is obtainable. There are just some objects that cannot be solved until one perishes and witnesses life after death. There is just no complete way to exactly prove whether there is life after death and definitively whether God exists.

McCloskey proposes: “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” Taking this into consideration, when a being exalts good, than it eliminates evil to a point of a greater good or to cause a worse evil. Good that can be brought out of peoples actions outweighs the evil. Atheists attempt to argue with Christians that if there is a God, then there should never be an instance where he cannot be reached. Nevertheless, it is becoming acknowledged that God cannot do what we think is logically impossible. As a Christian, I know that God can do the impossible. I also know that God did not bring evil into this world, but when Adam and Eve sinned is what caused the evil to even start. McCloskey’s statement is an invalid argument.