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
- Better Essays
Analysis Of Mccloskey 's ' On Being An Atheist
- 1919 Words
- 8 Pages
In McCloskey’s (1968) article “On Being an Atheist”, the arguments for the existence of God are rebutted and some compelling reasons are given in order to enlighten some other atheists who might be struggling to defend their beliefs. Firstly, McCloskey (1968) opens his discussion by asserting that the three main proofs (teleological, cosmological, and argument from design) of God’s existence are not the basic nor the right proofs with which to arrive at a “vague” (p.51) conclusion that states the
- 1919 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays - Better Essays
Response to "On Being An Atheist" by H. J. McCloskey
- 1599 Words
- 7 Pages
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
- 1599 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays - Better Essays
Foreman's Argumentative Analysis
- 1339 Words
- 6 Pages
In his article, McCloskey referred to proofs as arguments that “definitively establish the case for God,” and since they fail, according to his analysis, theists should abandon these proofs. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the word “proof”. While clarifying how to approach of God’s existence, Professor Foreman revealed that people should not try to use the word “proof” in regards to God’s existence since it implies certainty and derives from mathematics (i.e., where a mathematician
- 1339 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays