The article “On Being an Athiest,” by H.J. McClosky, was very interesting. McClosky basically lets us know that as atheists they do not believe in God and why they do not believe in the God that theists do. According to McCloskey, there are three proofs for a theist to believe in God; the cosmological, teleological, and the argument from design.
McCloskey refers to the arguments for God as proofs, and he suggests that we cannot establish a case with these, so called, proofs. After watching the PointeCast presentation, I agree with this. Proofs, as we call them, were not designed to be one-hundred percent. The presentation talked about the proofs being more than just proving facts such as in mathematics. Outside of mathematics,…show more content… Even though this one argument only talks about or shows us existence of the universe and necessary being we must not forget about so many other important ones. If someone were to accept this as a conclusion to accepting God, they would only want to know more. This is only a tiny piece that allows us just a glimpse of God's knowledge. Let’s take a look at the McCloskey’s second argument, the teleological argument.
In the teleological argument, McCloskey argues “to get proof going genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968). McCloskey is basically stating in his argument that all examples must be indisputable, or they have no ground to stand on. I disagree. Go back to the beginning when we talked about the only thing that can actually be proven is mathematics. Regardless of what you are trying to prove you must have multiple pieces of evidence, but even then they might not be indisputable. I do not believe anything is ever one-hundred percent disputable. So, I don’t believe that McCloskey’s argument is a very conclusive one. Let’s look at an example.
Aquina’s version of this argument is a great one. Aquina states that, “whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p.78). So let’s take this one step