The Necessary Proofs for the Belief in God Explained in “On Being an Athiest,” by H.J. McClosky

The conclusion is there is God. A theoretical proof for the existence of God, then, is only intended to mediate a reflexive awareness of the fact that man always and inevitably has to do with God in his intellectual and spiritual existence, whether he reflects upon it or not, and whether her freely accepts it or not (Sabourin, 1986, p. 32). It is what you believe. For believers, God is the explanation of why there is anything at all: why there is intelligibility, why there is freedom (Brown, 2012, p. 4). You desire to believe in God; you want that in your life. It is probably hard for some people not to believe in God. They may have had disappointments in life, tragedy, or not been taught about God. I think so many people have doubts

The issue that is unjustifiable in McCloskey’s argument as proofs is he dismisses the favor of God’s existence when the standard of “one hundred percent certainty is not reached” (Forman,2012). Instead of centering one focus on proving God’s existence, you must seek an accumulative case approach to explain the best case to God’s existence, which is streams of evidence to develop a strong case (Forman,2012). Proof and certainty are not always a reliable possibility, especially when it comes to our senses or scientific beliefs (Forman,2012). According to Evans and Manis “the failure to produce a proof of God’s existence does not necessarily mean that no one has any justified beliefs about God” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 61). The cosmological and teleological argument provides substantial amount of expositions for God existence meanwhile McCloskey’s arguments contradict themselves on the standard of proof that he

In the argument with McCloskey about using “proofs” to establish a case for Gods existence I would first agree with McCloskey that we should not use “proofs” for Gods existence since “proofs” cannot be a 100% proof of Gods existence. But there are two arguments that can help explain the existence of God. The first is the best explanation approach which is the best explanation for the things we witness. Another classical argument is cumulative case approach, in this approach we use more than one argument to make a case for Gods existence. Both of these approaches to the existence of God is easier to understand than just the “proof” argument. We must also understand the defeaters of the arguments and also that the God of the Bible is

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.

The argument also indulges in an infinite regression. It assumes that a transcendent god created the entire universe. However, it fails to account for what created the god. As stated in the lecture slides, a committee of lesser beings may have created the god, but that begs the question about who created the committee. One could object to this idea and believe that god has always existed, transcending time and reality itself. Once again, however, this logic is just as applicable to the universe. The universe is as capable of existing forever as a god is.

In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more reasonable and comfortable belief than that of Christianity.   McCloskey argued against the three theistic proofs, which are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design.   He pointed out the existence of evil in the world that God made.   He also pointed out that it is irrational to live by faith. According to McCloskey, proofs do not necessarily play a vital role in the belief of God.  Page 62 of the article states that "most theists do not come to believe in God as a basis for religious belief, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors."  However, he feels that as far as proofs serve theists,

As regards the cosmological argument itself, McCloskey states that "all we entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." (p.63) This is indeed true, there is no reason to necessarily infer a God person, however; the inference is of the nature that suggests (hence the term infer) a cause of such magnitude that it is practically God-like. Moreover, his words do not disprove the rational of a God. Entitlement not to call this cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny calling this cause or considering this cause to be "God."

McCloskey is a very smart man, but he did not give evidence to why the world is imperfect without a God and why there is evil in the world. McCloskey marks three proofs including the teleological, cosmological, and the problem of evil. We can prove these arguments in the “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence” PointeCast presentation. This presentation helps us prove the existence of God.

The argument discussed is one that has an unending list of contingent beings, all of which need a cause for existence. According to the article, McCloskey assumes that the argument calls for an uncaused cause to start an infinite number of contingent beings. McCloskey believes that each contingent being simply exists with an infinite number of causes that eventually lead back to a case of chance. In “Philosophy of Religion” by Stephen Evans, Evans refers to this way of thinking as a “brute fact.” According to Evans, by claiming this stance would turn the partial argument into a whole argument and concurrently, “this will require the defender of the argument to claim that the contingency of the whole of the universe can validly be inferred from the contingency of all its parts.” Where McCloskey’s ignorance further takes a violent curve against acquiring knowledge about the beginning of the universe connects to his argument is when he said “This means that the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot exist.” What he is alluding to, and is also the focal point of his disapproval of theism, is that humans do not have the right to claim that a being created the universe. If an atheist can claim that there is no such existence of God, then why is it that a theist cannot claim the existence of a God?

In John Perry’s “A Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God”, he uses a three character dialogue to debate the existence of God using evil as the main tactic against God’s existence. My goal for this paper is to prove that the theodicy Miller gives as his proof for the possible existence of God is in fact possible using scenarios that I have experienced during my lifetime. In order for Miller to suffice Weirob’s challenge he must convince her that, “The Christian God that Miller believes in – all-perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent – could possibly exist given as unimportant a bit of suffering.” (Perry, p. 99)

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their

To a non-theistic mind McCloskey’s argument may have relevance but when someone who has knowledge on both theism and atheism analyzes the problem of evil the question regarding the worlds need for God without evil has to be considered. If God were to create all humans with the inability to make the mistake of falling into temptation

* Respond to "I don't believe that God exists. How can anybody be sure?" Recognize that, logically, neither atheism nor agnosticism make sense. Atheism requires complete knowledge of everything (which no human has) in order to declare for certain that there is no God. Agnostics claim that they can't know anything for sure, but it's a contradiction to say, "One thing I know about God: You can't know anything about Him." Explain the evidence for God's existence: Every effect has a cause (Both science and the Bible acknowledge that the universe had a beginning, and that it couldn't have arrived without a force behind it), Every creation has a Creator (Nature itself points toward its Creator and reveals what He is like), Every design has a Designer

McCloskey proposes: “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” Taking this into consideration, when a being exalts good, than it eliminates evil to a point of a greater good or to cause a worse evil. Good that can be brought out of peoples actions outweighs the evil. Atheists attempt to argue with Christians that if there is a God, then there should never be an instance where he cannot be reached. Nevertheless, it is becoming acknowledged that God cannot do what we think is logically impossible. As a Christian, I know that God can do the impossible. I also know that God did not bring evil into this world, but when Adam and Eve sinned is what caused the evil to even start. McCloskey’s statement is an invalid argument.

The philosophical arguments presented in this document are not of religious text, nor scientific observation or established fact. Rather the premise of this God proof is bring together and share the various theories on which other God proofs have established foundations. I have heard it quoted that “Philosophy goes where hard science can 't, or won 't. Philosophers have a license to.” Therefore, with this in mind, I attest that it is more than problematic to construct an argument authenticating the unequivocal proof of the existence God. If nothing else this may be food for thought.