Response Paper Mccloskey Article (278.205 Kb)

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

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.

2.) Answer the following questions based on a reading of the above document and material from your textbook.

Vaguely addresses the First Main Point including 2 or more sub-points from Professional Paper Worksheet. Depth and detail are fair.

In some ways, it is refreshing to read H.J. McCloskey's article, "On Being an Atheist". Most people assume atheists are simple nihilists who do not subscribe to any sort of convictions or beliefs. The author's text, however, refutes this conventional viewpoint by producing several reasons for embracing atheism, many of which are studied and labored counterarguments to typical claims of theists. The most important part of this essay is found in its opening paragraphs, in which the author makes a very prudent point in explaining the fact that most theists do not require elaborate proofs or empirical evidence to substantiate their beliefs in a divinity. Those who do have not completely subscribed to faith, but to testaments of man's deductive prowess, which should not be confused with faith. However, the author makes a number of points that he believes alludes to fallacies in theism that those well versed in theism can handily refute.

Brown, Neil. "The New Atheism and The Existence of God.” Compass, 46, no. 3, 2-5. Kensington, Australia: Compass, Spring 2012.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

Although explicated on many occasions and by many different authors, the teleological argument for the existence of God provides the best springboard from which to launch contemporary convictions of faith. In the revised edition of his earlier The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne constructs a solid outline that reveals the exact structure of the teleological argument. He presents both forms of the teleological argument , holds each under the light of skeptical review and then provides insight and defense that allows for careful philosophical review.

1. Read the attached article (after question 16) and write a short summary and reaction to it.

One of the main topic in the philosophy of religion is the discussion between theists and skeptics on the existence of God. Atheists say that there is a logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the existence of God. However, theists believe that the mere existence of evil is not sufficient enough to completely dismiss the possibility of a morally perfect being existing This paper will discuss the logical inconsistencies between God and the “problem of evil” as well as the theist 's response to this argument through the free-will defense. In response, the atheist will address the problems evil that the free-will defense did not address, like natural evils. an argument that the thiests will attempt to dismiss using the “expanded free-will defense” which touches on humans primordial estrangement from God. Nonetheless, I feel the theist 's response fails to defend the existence of God because it does not fully address gratuitous evils or suffering from nonhuman beings.

(P2) If every event must have a cause, event A must have a cause B, which in turn must have a cause C, and so on.

Upon reading H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” it appears that McCloskey has quite the interesting yet sometimes understandable outlook on theism. In regards to “proofs”, McCloskey notes that there are three main arguments that defend God’s existence, which he calls “proofs.” These three arguments are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the argument from design. (McCloskey, 1968) He tells of his beliefs in regards to these “proofs” and theism in general is seemingly ignorant and “miserable.” On several occasions McCloskey refers to these “proofs” as they unable to be established without a doubt as a proof should be; therefore, he believes that they should in turn be abandoned as false information. (McCloskey, 1968) Within Foreman’s presentation “Approaching the Question of

Although it appears irrational to deny the first premise, some scholars have challenged the causal principle on philosophical grounds. Deriving arguments from David Hume, philosophers (such as J.L. Mackie) have sought to refute the first premise by contending there is no reason to believe the causal principle is a priori true. Contrary to their assertion, the principle of causation appears to be a synthetic a priori proposition, as it is a universal and necessary feature of both cognition and reality, providing the precondition of thought itself. Nonetheless, challenging the causal principle because it is not a priori true does nothing to invalidate the premise since the assertion does not indicate the premise is false, nor does it compel us to think the antithesis is plausible—that something can truly originate from uncaused. Undeterred, such opponents further maintain that an infinite chain of contingent events could provide a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe, even if it were void a

McCloskey throughout his article refers to cosmological, teleological, and design arguments as proofs. Stated from Merriam-Webster a proof is, “Something which shows that something else is true or correct”. This goes to show that McCloskey is arguing the existence of God and is giving these three arguments the basis that they are correct. Although as stated in “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence” presentation? States, “I do not think that is what these arguments do, I do not think they give 100% proof of God’s existence And if that is what you’re thinking about the arguments, then that may be why you don’t think the arguments work”. This goes to show that McCloskey is basing almost everything on these arguments and is not looking at all the resources at a whole. As foremen also explains to use for these arguments is the “Best explanation approach” (Foreman). Through this it is able to use these arguments to best explain the reasons as to why

The question of the existence of a higher power, or a god, has long plagued philosophers. Today, much of the intellectual community believe that a god does not, and cannot exist. Yet, for much of the world’s population there is a firm belief in a deity. McCloskey in his article “On Being an Atheist”, outlines the reasons he believes theists are wrong. As a result it is only natural for theists to examine his work and see if his points truly defeat the idea of god’s existence.