Mccloskey Response Paper

Although science has helped us understand something so enormous such as our universe, there is a limit to what we as human beings are able to scientifically comprehend and that limit is met when it comes to proving the existence of a god.

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

HJ McCloskey is a proclaimed atheist. He presents lots of arguments including the belief of why there is no God. He also says that atheism is a more comfortable belief. He states that it is impossible for a higher power to create an imperfect world. McCloskey thinks that even if there was a maker than how can people be comforted by Him instead of blaming him for creating an imperfect world with evil and imperfections.

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

In reading McCloskey’s article it’s obvious he is searching for definitive proof that God exists. He is unable to find proof and therefore comes to the conclusion that God must not exist. He believes that the existence of evil discredits arguments made in support of believing in God. There is not one single thing in this world that we can know definitively without looking at the evidence. You have to look at the whole picture. Just like in a criminal investigation, the crime scene investigators gather evidence they are not looking for just the bullets or just the body. They look and gather all the data before coming to any conclusions. We will discuss

Within McCloskey’s article he refers to three well known theist arguments as proofs the cosmological, teleological and argument from design. The Cosmological argument

McCloskey refers to the arguments for God as proofs, and he suggests that we cannot establish a case with these, so called, proofs. After watching the PointeCast presentation, I agree with this. Proofs, as we call them, were not designed to be one-hundred percent. The presentation talked about the proofs being more than just proving facts such as in mathematics. Outside of mathematics,

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 McCloskey’s article, he ventured to explain how atheism is by far more rational, as well as more comfortable than theism is. McCloskey used the word “proof” instead of “theory” to add deceptive power to this argument of his. Unfortunately, there are many of his theories that can be and are accepted as a truth, but they cannot be absolutely proven. Nothing in this world can be proven one

The Case for Faith, was written by Lee Strobel who at the time was an outspoken atheist. Strobel set out on a mission to disprove the Christian faith. Along the way, as he gathered information he was slowly convinced that there was truth to the religion. In result of his findings Strobel published three books to help explain his findings. In this book he discusses objections that arise in the minds of believers. Strobel discusses eight different objection, thoroughly explains them, and provides deep information to help resolve these objections. Some of the issues that he touched on are tilled; Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot, A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell, and I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be a Christian. Within each obligation Strobel includes Bible verses and professional explanations on objection at hand. The most beneficial sections are those where he gives simple analogies that can benefit anybody no matter where one is in the faith journey.

The word “proof” is frequently used in the article to reference the arguments (such as ontological and teleological) which McCloskey believes are insufficient to establish the existence of God as a Creator. McCloskey argues that these proofs should be dismissed because they lack evidence. The dismissal of these proofs however are incorrect. It is impossible to assume that God’s existence can be definitively be proven by any one argument. It is the basic idea that the creator of the universe surpasses our humanistic ways of thinking. Which is to say that we cannot stand to reason his existence. According to McCloskey the argument of design along with the cosmological and teleological arguments are used by the Theists as proof to support their

The existence of God is probably one of the most asked questions of all. Because of this, there has been many arguments regarding this topic, including the teleological argument and the cosmological argument. H.J McCloskey wrote his article, “On Being an Atheist,” on the account of these two arguments. He denies both of these as being incorrect right off the bat, and addresses this common question as almost like a waste of time because our lack of proofs. This question comes along with many arguments and questioning of what to believe and what not to believe. In his article, H.J McCloskey tries to show that atheism is a more comfortable and reasonable belief than Christianity.

A last point about the issue of abhorrence; on what grounds is McCloskey asserting an activity is malicious? How is he deciding his ethical qualities? Without a doubt he doesn't trust good values are relative, for he is avowing the affliction of blameless individuals as a goal standard. Yet on agnosticism one can't do this. On the off chance that the agnostic is correct and there is no God then Dostoyevsky remark that everything is allowed is approved. Be that as it may, then insidious and great would stop to exist. How then might you be able to lead a good, or for this situation more agreeable life? Profound quality is aimless in a relativistic world, so how does McCloskey accuse malicious for God? For the skeptic to be genuinely glad he must live reliably, however in the event that the agnostic did live reliably he couldn't in any way, shape or form be upbeat considering a definitive esteem, reason and importance of their live without the presence of God. Accordingly it can be seen that belief in a higher power

The issue at the very beginning of this article is that of differing definitions. McCloskey comes out with talking about Christians not having proofs, and how he will refute them. He is continually using this language throughout the article. The problem is that a Christian would not define the arguments as proofs. A proof, when defined, has the idea that you are 100 percent certain that you are right about your thesis. It is really more of a scientific or mathematical term.

The question of who bears the burden of proof frequently comes up in debates between theists and atheists. In some cases, the theists claim that the atheists bear the burden of proof as it is a self evident fact that God exists. Whereas some atheists would claim that the theists bear the burden of proof since they are making supernatural claims. In the following essay I will be discussing both opinions on this matter, and perhaps show how the burden of proof lies on both of them and neither of them.