H. J Mccloskey's Article 'On Being An Atheist'

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

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

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

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."

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,

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

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?

First and foremost, the cosmological argument does not necessarily make an argument for God’s existence. This particular argument leads us to a first cause. It is simply saying that everything that exists needs a cause. According to Manis and Evans, God is not a contingent being. Atheists argue that everything has a cause or an origin but if God had an Origin then he wouldn’t be God. The cosmological argument is not an end all prove all to the existence of God it is merely an argument that pushes us to go deeper and to study God and the origin of the universe more intensively. McCloskey attempts to dismiss this argument altogether but for the previous reasons mentioned he is misguided when he states that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate and all-powerful, all perfect, uncaused

1 What does Scout think of current fashions in education? What evidence is there that she feels this way (consider who she uses as a comparison to her own experiences)?

In Act II, Hamlet’s depression due to his father’s death and his overall miserable emotional state are best highlighted throughout the act and a little before and after the act. Hamlet’s depression is aroused when his father, King Hamlet, dies in battle. This depression is more severe than standard mourning, as Hamlet still laments that he would take his own life if not for suicide being a sin, even months after his father’s death. Both his mother and Claudius do not understand his preoccupation with his death, as Claudius even implores in Act I, “ How is it that the clouds still hang on you?” (I.ii.68).

The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments collectively strive to prove one point, the existence of God. Ontological arguments lean on reasoning to prove its point of an a priori being or existence. Cosmological arguments focus on the idea that our infinite and expanding universe had to have been created by God or a higher being, due to the complexity of the universe itself. Teleological argument emphasizes on the idea that God constructed the universe for the sole purpose of completing an end result in which the universe was made for.

This graph shows the price, of birth control pills. This graph was made using raw data from this site. This graph is extremely significant with what it means. Although it shows that birth control pills are highly expensive, it also shows that by giving birth control to woman will cost as little as $15 a month. Reasons for the ranging price’s is because of the amount of micrograms of synthetic estrogen it contains.The more it has the more expensive the product becomes. This graph shows the increase of price in birth control pills. It also shows that by giving birth control to woman will cost as little as $15 a month, with an average price of $39 for a reasonable pill.

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

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)