Arguments In H. J. Mccloskey's On Being An Atheist

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

McCloskey is a very smart man, but he did not give evidence to why the world is imperfect without a God and why there is evil in the world. McCloskey marks three proofs including the teleological, cosmological, and the problem of evil. We can prove these arguments in the “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence” PointeCast presentation. This presentation helps us prove the existence of God.

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.

Mackie’s article begins by arguing that philosophers challenge the existence of God but there is no ‘rational proof’ to state that God is real; “… religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational.” (Mackie, J.L. 1955, p. 200) He implies that the evidence to prove the existence of God is obsolete and inaccurate. Given this

The real meat of the concept of first cause is completely left out. The argument from contingency and the temporal argument are never mentioned. When making an argument for or against anything, both sides should be explained equally and fairly. This is a one sided argument. When McCloskey argues against the cosmological proof he uses the argument against first cause and a necessary being as not being an argument, because one cannot say something is necessary for existence just because of its mere existence. If McCloskey wanted to try and validate his argument at this point, it would have been more logical to try and explain away the necessary being cause with The Big Bang Theory, or evolution. Then a real debate could ensue with a counter argument of creation. There are many valid points to be made with C-14 carbon dating and the fact that there is nothing new under the sun. DNA remains the same in all creatures and if evolution was a fact, something would have evolved past what it has been in so many years. There are no new creations and if anything mankind on a general basis seems to be de-evolving in some areas. McCloskey’s argument is not sound. An argument is not a real argument or debate by just simply saying it cannot be. His argument is just so much spinning on the subject. It seems to be one of those if I say it is, so then it is. All the proofs for the existence of God

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

The cosmological argument thus provides us with the grounds to believe in the existence of a “beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the Universe” (Craig). This explanation can point to none other than

McCloskey states in his article “On being an Atheist” that he finds much more comfort in being an atheist than believing in an all-powerful and all-knowing God because of the presence of evil in the world. He goes on to use this evil in the world as his “proof” that there is no God that exists. He then uses arguments such as the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument to go further into his reasoning. He states that these classical arguments cannot prove that God exists. He argues that if there were an all-powerful being in the world then would he not rid the world of evil? This is why he believes there to be more comfort in atheism. Yes there is evil in our world unfortunately so how should a theist, A Christian, respond to McCloskey and his arguments?

Over the centuries, there have been many attempts by religious philosophers to prove the existence of God. Though the history of the philosophy of religion has been dominated by attempts to prove the existence of God, there also exists a number of arguments that seek to disprove theism. In philosophy, it is important to be clear about the meanings of the terms that are central to the argument. Theism is the belief that there is a deity that is distinct from and transcends the world, which it creates and intervenes in. Atheism is the opposite of Theism which is the belief that there is no such thing as a deity. The arguments for the existence of God sets out to explain each of the common philosophical arguments for theism, and so to explore

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

Often, when we talk about proof, we usually have a somewhat vague understanding of the term. When you use the word proof, what do you mean by it? What kinds of proofs are there? Are there degrees of proof? Is a certain kind of proof better than another? What kind of proof do you feel most strongly about?

Mark Foreman makes this basic argument in his presentation, “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence”. Dr. Foreman details four ways to substantiate a theistic perspective. The best explanations approach essentially establishes that even math and science rely upon same in their fields. Concrete or tangible proof is impossible since definitive proof of God is not possible in this world. There is no clear and incontrovertible formula which proves God’s existence. However, the existence of God is a cogent best explanation for existence of God. The second way is to look at the issue of defeasible arguments. While it is true that the arguments over the existence of God are defeasible, there is no way to concretely disprove the existence of God. The fallibility of humans and the mistakes made by theists in their presentations or arguments does not establish the non-existence of God. Individuals know in part and therefore no one has a complete and/or perfect understanding. The cumulative approach (the third approach) cannot be overlooked in establishing some indicia of proof of God’s existence. In a court setting, it is typically multiple pieces of evidence which establishes a well-tried case. In this approach, several or many distinct evidences combine to buttress or corroborate the existence of God position. One final argument concerns the minimalistic understanding of the existence of God. It is not a pre-requisite or a condition precedent that a theist proves the

The Cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument proposed by Aquinas. Aquinas claims that every existence must have some sort of cause. This argument attempts to find the cause of how things came into existences. As before, there must be an explanation for a thing’s existence such as the universe for example and any facts about the universe; those facts needs a reason. Coming to the idea that every being is either a dependent being or self existent being. However, not every being can be a dependent being therefore there must exist a self existent being and

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