Inthe last part of his argument McCloskey claims that atheism is more comfortingthan theism. If it was not for theism we could not consider the meaning of lifeor try to figure out what our lives purpose was. We would just live in a worldwhere we live, and we die with no hope or promise of a better life after death.
For those that believe in the existence of God and believe in His word that wasset forth we have hope, and we gain comfort in that hope of a better life afterdeath. Through God we are able to share our burdens, and once we are relievedof those burdens we will be in a much better place. However, for atheism whatyou see is what you get they do not believe that they have someone to lightentheir heavy burdens and that once your life is over that is it all there is,there is nothing else. Onthe Problem of Evil McCloskey’s main objection to theism is the presence ofevil in the world and he raises it several times: “No being who was perfectcould have created a world in which there was avoidable suffering or in whichhis creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engagein morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocentpersons.” Evan and Manis say that “good is opposed to evil, in such a way thata good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can”.
In the beginning God didnot create the world with such evils in it. These evils came about with thesins of man. Adam and Eve were drove from the garden based on the bad choicesthey made, they allowed the evil to be expelled upon the earth.
God cleaned upthe evil and the mess of man once with the great flood. If God gave us freewill to make choses for ourselves then we should have to deal with the consequencesof our actions. Even though he is an all-powerful being why should he continueto clean up the mess that we as a society have brought upon ourselves. If manwants evil to sice to exist, then we must put an end to it ourselves. McCloskeyclaims that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against”the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.” He arguesthat with the amount of imperfection and evil in the world that God must benon-existent. He brings up the question as to how could an omnipotent,all-perfect being create a world that is so imperfect? How can this God allowsuch horrendous things to happen? Evansand Manis remind us that the cosmological argument and the teleologicalargument are not going to give proof of Gods existence they only help us do discoverthe knowledge giving to us by God to reach the conclusion of His existence.From thereading in Evans and Manis the argument can be made that there is anintelligent designer of the universe.
It may not be indisputable evidence butevidence nevertheless. As stated in the reading that there is a “beneficialorder” things do not just occur by chance because they are far too complex. Everythingis designed is such a way that there must be some kind of “intelligent beingexists by whom all natural things are directed to, that being is God”.McCloskey goes on to say that everything we know and see came about onlythrough evolution. McCloskey uses Darwin’s theory of evolution as grounds tobase his belief of a non-existing God on. Upon reading the article On Being anAtheist and the text by Evans and Manis on might argue that evolution and Godintelligent design are one in the same.
Once finalizing the order of things Godcould have simply just set things in to motion. “The evolutionary process, issimply the means whereby God, the intelligent designer, realizes his purposes”.If evolution really did occur, it was only because God allowed it to. In is next argument McCloskeyaddresses his “proof” of teleological argument. The teleological argumentargues the existence of an intelligent designer do to the “fact the naturalworld appears to exhibit purposive order or design” (Evan & Manis). McCloskeyclaims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of designand purpose are needed”.
He feels that an indisputable example does notactually exist. So, there for its proof never gets going. For McCloskey’s needfor absolute proof he cannot use an argument as this one because the problemlies within itself. This argument does not give 100% actual proof of Godsexistence it merely just suggests and points towards His existence.
So, therefor the claim made by McCloskey cannot be used to provide indisputable evidenceof Gods existence based on the teleological argument. In his article McCloskey statesthat “The Cosmological Argument does not entitle us to postulate anall-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As previously stated thecosmological argument is based on the necessary beings and the contingentbeings. In saying that you cannot have one without the other. Based on thefinal paragraph Evan and Manis claim that the cosmological argument the base ofGods existence and it is used to justify the existence of God and everything wesee, and that the argument is “more than an entering wedge into the knowledgeof God” you must believe it to be true so that you may defend the argument ofGod existence.Onthe Cosmological Argument: McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of theworld constitutes no reason for believing in such a being i.
e., a necessarilyexisting being.” The Cosmological Argument argues the existence of God. ThatGod is the creator of the universe and all things in it. McCloskey does notbelieve that the existence of the universe is enough evidence to justify theexistence of God. For McCloskey everything that exist could just as easily notexisted.
Evans and Manis claim the answer hinges on “the contingency of theuniverse”. Evan and Manis feel that there are “necessary beings” and contingentbeings”. A contingent being is somethingin the universe that can be seen and that we know it exists, but its only existencebecause its existence is dependent upon something else. A necessary being is abeing that merely exists without need of any validation; it is the source fromwhich all contingent beings exist. In this case the contingent being would bethe universe and everything in it. The necessary being would be God.
So, therefor based on the argument of Evans and Manis God must exist because theuniverse and everything in it exist.In the article “On being Atheist” by H J McCloskey, McCloskeyrefers to the arguments as “proofs” and often implies that they can’tdefinitively establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned.McCloskey uses what he considers to be three “proofs”, The cosmological,teleological, and the argument from design to disprove the existence of God.McCloskey is basing these “proofs” on the fact that there is no scientificproof of Gods existence that we only have what is considered to by God’s wordas proof. Based on Foreman’s presentation, “Approaching the Question of God’sExistence, McCloskey is using his “proofs” to argue something out of context.The cosmological, teleological, and design arguments were never intended to beused in such a way, and McCloskey was saying that since these “proofs” likedscientific justification then they much not be true. For this response paper we were toexamine the article by H J McCloskey “On Being an Atheist”.
In his article McCloskeytries to justify his reasoning for not believing in the existence of God. Byusing our text we will argue the existence of God and justify our belief in aGod against the lack there of by McCloskey.