Mcclosky On Being An Aetheist Analysis

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 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,

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?

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

a. 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?

McCloskey in his article, "On Being An Atheist" claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief “have no weight”. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity

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].”

The question of God’s existence has lingered in the mind of man since the dawn of religion. The simple fact that billions of people consider themselves to have some allegiance to a deity means that this question deserves to be seriously considered. In this paper I will argue for the sake that God does exist and the reasons why. I will include many of the arguments found in our philosophy book and those covered in class as well as other subjects such as human suffering and the reasons God chose to make the world as it is today, also including examples from life and the movies we watched in class.

Beginning with the Cosmological Argument, McCloskey claimed that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e., a necessarily existing being].” (McCloskey, 1968) The claim is challenged by Evan and Manis in their book Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about faith. Evan and Manis claim that is the cause of one thing something is unknown that than that something must have an explanation unless a being that requires not explanation is in existence. (Evans and Manis, 2009) However, if one was to believe McCloskey’s claim, which argues that this necessary being does not exist, than they would be required to

Lets first look at his wording of “proofs”. Foreman spoke in his video that we should stray away from the word “proof” when we speak of God. That we really can’t prove he is a being, but there are many things that we can’t prove. There are some philosophers that define a “proof” as one that convinces every sane and rational person who carefully considers the argument. (Evan and Manis, 2009) If we used this then our classical arguments would fail as proofs because they don’t hit every person. The

The question of whether or not God exists is central to many modes of understanding and systems of knowledge, both theological and philosophical, and the implications of the answer to this question are quite far reaching indeed. The very fabric of reality depends upon the knowledge that this question seeks to obtain, and the manner in which an investigation of God's existence (or non-existence) is conducted and the specific inquiries that are made in this regard have their own implications on understandings in all areas of human knowledge and action. The following presents a point-by-point examination and refutation of one specific argument that has been raised as "proof" that God cannot exist.

Therefore, it opens up the debate for knowledge or belief of God’s existence. Many people believe in God’s existence, but they believe in it because of previous notions. There is no concrete evidence, or scientific proof that a greater being exists, therefore debunking the idea of knowledge behind the concept of His existence. By distinguishing the differences behind the concepts it displays that there is a clear distinction between belief and knowledge. Since, in religion there are multiple different ideas of God’s based on different upbringings further proving that if there was scientific, concrete knowledge behind the concept of God’s existence, everyone could perceive the idea in the same way.

McCloskey brings up the problem of evil and he makes arguments against the concept of free will. He claims “might not God