preview

Critical Analysis of McCloskey’s Arguement in "On Being an Athiest"

Better Essays
In this response, the author would like to state he is a Christian and finds the chapter to be very difficult to read. The chapter, “On Being an Atheist”, can be very convincing if the reader is not strong in their beliefs. Being a new Christian for over a year, the author of this response wants to make a statement that the spiritual warfare Christians believe in, has taken place this week. Atheist believes in no God. Therefore, they would not believe such spiritual warfare exists.

The author of this response would like to state that the arguments could not be proofs. Nothing can be 100% proven. To state something is a proof when it does not prove anything but cause arguments, is a fallacy. McCloskey believes the
…show more content…
Nothing could just appear on its own. Therefore, there has to be a cause. Biblically the Christian believes that God is the Creator. For in Genesis 1:1 it says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” ( NASB n.d.). The author of Genesis clearly states there is a cause for all existence and that the cause is God.

McCloskey claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-prefect, uncaused cause.” The argument does not state there is a God, but it makes a claim that something caused everything to come into existence. The view of a theist is that there is a God and this argument gives “key elements of the theistic conception of God” (1982, 59). With the conclusion of this argument, many views of God can be determined. “If someone accepts the conclusion, the proper attitude for him to adopt is surely a desire to learn more about God” (ibid, 59). In the Christian view, we learn about God by reading His word. The word is considered the revelation of God. “Revelation is the act whereby God gives us knowledge about Himself which we could not otherwise know” (Towns 2002, 29). People need to understand that just this view or argument alone does not justify a case for God but with the others, it does.

With Teleological argument, McCloskey’s claim that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed,” he does not see both sides
    Get Access