Using Proofs to Establish a Case for Gods Existence: McCloskey

The question that was posed in this week’s discussion had me pondering not only what I felt about the statement, “God is good,” but also what the book referred to as a prerequisite that adhered to the statement. First I would like to take a look at what the author of the book refers to as “good” when referencing God. J.L. Mackie’s principle states, “It follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent things exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible” (Davies 209). This statement made by Mackie would suggest that if there was a good omnipotent “thing,” evil would not exist. Mackie believes that since evil exists, then there must not be a God. Mackie also points out a contradiction

The argument for the existence of God has been a debate for many centuries. God, in terms of philosophy, must be a supernatural being that: is all-knowing, is all-powerful, and is all-good. Theists believe God exists based on these terms; atheists on the other hand don’t believe in God. Atheists believe that if there is evil present in the universe, then there is no possible way God can exist if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Evil is defined in three different categories: human evil (evil we humans cause), natural evil (not in our control, of the Earth), and sufferings of the heart (not necessarily human/natural evil). The argument for the problem of evil is that God doesn’t exist because evil exists. In

Based on the article, McCloskey's view of faith is based on Tillich's definition of faith as "being ultimately concerned, as claiming truth for its concern, and as involving commitment, courage, and the taking of risk." (P. 65)  In response, McCloskey holds that this 'risk' is reckless and irrational due to the problematic nature of evil.  The mere existence of evil in the world suggests that an all-perfect being is not perfect, otherwise creation would have no flaws.   In effect, he is using the same argument from design and the teleological argument - that from the effects you can determine the cause.  So if creation is flawed by these evils, and creation goes back to God, then God is flawed.  McCloskey does not continue to prove or disprove any valid reason for accepting or denying God's existence.  In effect, he is guilty of

To clearly show the problem of evil, I will lay out it out in premise, conclusion form:

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

HJ McCloskey is a proclaimed atheist. He presents lots of arguments including the belief of why there is no God. He also says that atheism is a more comfortable belief. He states that it is impossible for a higher power to create an imperfect world. McCloskey thinks that even if there was a maker than how can people be comforted by Him instead of blaming him for creating an imperfect world with evil and imperfections.

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?

How long has mankind been arguing, and what exactly is the narrative for these arguments? If a person is a Christian and believes the Bible is the Word of God, then it is a fact, Adam and Eve knew the existence of God. They had direct experiential knowledge. Cain had direct knowledge of God, as did Noah and Abraham. So when did man stop knowing that God exists and arguing for non-existence? This path that man first took, a small step down, has now turned into the main highway that more and more people are driving on at a very high speed. With so many signs and prophecies from the Bible, how did mankind become so filled with a sin nature as to want to constantly deny the existence of the one thing that can give them eternal life?

d. McCloskey claims that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.” Remembering Evans and Manis’ comments about the limitations of the cosmological argument, how might you respond to this charge by McCloskey?

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 defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity

Williams gears his argument towards those who have at least an intermediate knowledge of Catholicism. He begins by acknowledging that he has yet to find concrete proof of the existence of God; However, he continues by saying that in order to prove the existence of something he must also consider the counter argument of the existence of God. His references of various saints suggest that hiss argument is geared towards those who have a basic understanding of the faith and have some level of understanding regarding the people who have helped shape the faith. Williams goes on to reference the Bible to convince the audience of the existence of a higher power but never fails to admit that there is a lack of concrete evidence of such a being. Williams’ argument is suited for his perspective audience because he references material that is familiar to readers. He also touches on specific points that

McCloskey believes that because there is evil there is no God. There could be valid reasons for the presence of evil in the world, though some may beyond our comprehension and understanding. There needs to be some proof or evidence provided if one wants to make a claim that it’s illogical for God and evil to exist in the same world. McCloskey’s article does not provide this proof. He just says that because there is evil there is no God.

The Cosmological Argument, in my opinion, does provide "proof" that a God or Superhuman being exist. According Rowe (2007), the Cosmological Argument lies with the fundamental premise of Principle of Sufficient Reason or PSR (Rowe, 2007). However, Rowe would argue that no one has succeeded at showing  that PSR is an assumption that most of us share (Rowe, 2007, p.32). As far as "proof", I believe the argument does a "sufficient" job at proving God's existence using a logical argument of deductive validity. Deductive validity identifies the premise of the argument asking only one question, If the premises were true, would its conclusion have to be true (Rowe, 2007, p. 22). A yes or no answer to this vital question will help you to reach a conclusion.

Cosmological proof of gods existence looks at the functionality of our universe, it looks at the order and causation of the universe. something needs to begin everything, something that moves things and can not move things, and that thing was god. in our universe nothing is the cause of itself. we need an uncaused cause. what caused the universe and life? there must be a cause to that because we can not have an infinite number of causes. God is the beginning of it all. all that existence could not have been which means there was a time that everything we perceive and feel now did not once exist, meaning there was a time where nothing existence. all things rely on something to exist, however that makes us agree that there must be a being with permanent existence, a being that has not been brought to existence but has always been there, that being is god. everything that is created has a reason to be there. Because the universe had a start it has a cause. the universe must have had a start and a beginning otherwise we would have been stuck in an infinite time before anything could happen. Examples for this argument could include having a ball, if no one acted upon moving it it will always be in its same position forever ( theoretically ).

The first strength of the design argument for the existence of God is that it argues that God is the best explanation for the apparent design in the universe. The only evidence needed is one to simply step outside, for it is clear to see aspects of the universe that are perfectly adapted to fulfil their function: such as the roots of trees. The argument is strong because all around us is evidence of purpose, order and suitability for human life. There is evidence of deliberate design all around us that are greater than the works of humanity can ever achieve, and this clearly points towards an intelligent, personal and infinitely greater designer. This designer is God.