Mccloskey On Being An Atheist Essay

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

Evolution does not necessarily mean that we evolved from animals, evolution can mean that animals evolve to adapt to their surroundings for their survival. To sum up evolution is this it’s just a way for God to recreate his creations to make a more perfect universe. As to McCloskey stating that evolution has displaced the need for a designer, I do not agree with this statement. Simply because evolution does not take the place for a designer evolution is what the designer does to enhances is creations. Evolution also does not replace the fact that life forms in general did not just appear from nothing, an intelligent designer created these life forms then the possibility of adaptation through evolution was created by our intelligent designer.

The outline of the design argument is that the universe has order and purpose and is regular, the complexities of the universe demonstrate some form of design, a design requires a

The next three chapters, Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine, cover the atheist and what manners of atheist there are and how Christians should interact with them. Chapter Seven apprises the reader on the different flavors of atheists. There are three different kinds of atheist people will come across. There are those who are angry at a God they don’t believe exist, so they tend to be more hostile towards religion. There are atheists who are not necessarily neutral, but don’t have an aggressive insolence towards religion. The last group are those who identify as an atheist because they are simply unaware of the evidence of God. Chapter Eight is about how science is not actually against theology, but instead it actually needs theology and is against atheism. It also shows the historical evidence of Jesus, a little bit on the gnostic gospels and what they really are, and miracles and the circular logic of atheist trying to shoot miracles down. The author in Chapter Nine informs the reader on how to interact with our atheist friends. Like in the earlier chapters, Cawley gives micro practices and meso practices. The micro practice in this chapter is question flipping. This is basically the practice of turning fractious questions into delightful answers, and instead of answering straight forward, its beating around the bush.

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 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

The debate between the Design Argument and The Theory of Evolution has garnered endless disputes. The Design Argument, DA, is the argument that a higher entity exists and that he designed all life sources with a purpose in mind. Charles conceived the Theory of Evolution, TE. His theory was not assembled to explain the origin of life; it was to explain the origin of species. The fine-tuning argument is a rebuttal that I will also be discussing thoroughly.

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

With the rise of modern science over the centuries came a vigorous attack on Christian theology; most universally recognized is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Although it has been taught throughout schools across the country since the 1960’s, recent legislature entitled “academic freedom” bills has encouraged skepticism of Darwin’s theory due to the inherent contradictions of it. Still, some people challenge Christianity on the basis of a lack of evidence, yet they’ll turn to theories of evolution which lack empirical support without enquiry.

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

This is trying to suggest that theories such as those produced by evolutionists and other possibilities may just equally explain all the intricacies of nature without suggesting that a designer was necessary. The purpose is to take away the idea that a God designing everything that has design-like qualities is as probable, if not less probable, than scientific ideas such as natural selection. While these ideas are certainly just as valid as the idea that God created everything, it is more difficult to apply scientific explanations, due to the fact that no hypothesis in science can ever be proved, only disproved and or turned into a theory. With God, there needs to be no proof or process, just trust which is easier to do while still being

McCloskey aims to the point that theists try to claim their arguments as proof that God does exist. However, the role the theists mainly plays is that of showing the possibility that God does exists

The designer designs the blueprints however since everything is a design, the designer themselves also must have a blueprint meaning something has to have designed the designer. This is where the argument starts to make its rapid decline. A designer can be anyone or anything, due to this it means it also doesn't have to be God. There are also designs that have many many flaws. Humans can drown, get cancer, need sleep, starve, and

These arguments both refer to a creator of some sort- whether that is God or another outside force. The teleological argument, however, suggests that there is purpose within the order of the universe. McCloskey believes that both arguments, the cosmological and teleological arguments, cannot prove that God is the ultimate designer. He also claims that there is not enough, if any, proof of a designer. To counter his argument, I would argue that there is not enough proof to prove that there is not a creator- however, not one side can be absolutely sure that they are completely

In the articles, McCloskey believes he has the proof of being a Atheists is a much easier religion than that of Christianity. He believes that Atheism is a more functional form of beliefs and has a series of arguments to justify his points. He summarizes all of his “proofs” which conclude from his research that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of God. Within the article, McCloskey presents to the reader three different series of arguments in regards to why he is against Christianity. The arguments he sets before the reader are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument of design. He also touches on the points about the problem of evil and how it can be interpreted [1.] McCloskey states “ that