On Being An Atheist Mccloskey Analysis

Decent Essays
Response Paper: “On Being an Atheist” H.J. McCloskey published an article in February of 1968 called “On Being an Atheist,” in the journal Question One. McCloskey compelling exposition in why the arguments of God’s existences is ineffective. The response paper to McCloskey’s arguments will be answered by way of theistic worldview. McCloskey strived to reveal that atheism is moderately more logical, as well as agreeable than theism. The word “proof is used by McCloskey instead of “theory” because to him it is added power to his argument. He has many concepts that are welcomed as truth, but cannot be entirely confirmed. There is not a thing that can be proven one hundred percent, because they are clearly based on an abundance of concepts that…show more content…
The medical field is a good illustration; there are many illnesses in this world such as, AIDS and cancer that take millions of lives each year and thus far have been unsuccessful in gaining medical means to fully attacking and completely eliminate the diseases. One might ask, is it impossible to gain this medical technology? There might be a cure, but scientist thus far have been unsuccessful in discovering it. This illustration mirrors the same idea with God, although we seem to fall short of ultimate proof does not mean He does not exist The controversy McCloskey has for the cosmological argument is: “The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being” (H.J. McCloskey, 63). Evans and Manis respond by giving a non-temporal outline of the cosmological argument. The argument they give is divided into three sections: “Some contingent beings exist. If any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist. Therefore, there exists a necessary being” (70). They acknowledge the problem of saying that an unbound array as confirmation to show a contingent being exists may show the idea that there is no final clarification to the cause. Evans and Manis mention objection to their argument. The
Get Access