H. J. McCloskey, The Atheist
Proofs
In the article “On Being an Atheist,” McCloskey delivers numerous opinions that seek to validate the non-existence of God. This argument is known as Atheism. He does this using quite a few claims made by theists. The claims are separated into numerous segments upon which he lays his contradicting opinions. In the beginning, he delivers a short summary of the arguments offered by theists. He refers to the theists as ‘proofs’ and claims that not a single one of the proofs make sufficient defenses to trust that God does exist. Though one of the proofs may not show the existence of God, all the proofs offer a solid indication for the existence of God as their agreement or lack of contradiction. However, …show more content…
The way that there are animals on the planet that don't know how they appeared means that some being more than likely was there with a specific goal because these animals would not be in existence since the trail could not be infinite (Evans and Manis, 73). On Earth, practically everything happening must be caused by something. For example, a tree may not fall if not damaged by lighting or excessively old, making it impossible to stand. Along these lines, the presence of the universe must be subject to a reason that was not caused in light of the fact that the causes are not unbounded. As indicated by Evans and Manis in the last passage on page 77, McCloskey could be correct that the cosmological contention, "does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncased cause," …show more content…
McCloskey does not agree with that argument and contends that, “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” He further contends that what we need to believe is that there was a malevolently powerful or an imperfect designer, (52). This is in contradictory to his argument on the breaking of nature, where there was an uncaused cause. Further, he has no undisputable proof that an imperfect designer was there, which makes his claims disputable, as well. By suggesting there was an imperfect designer of the world, he agrees to the fact that nature was broken at one time. On his idea of indisputability of a proof of God’s existence, he is wrong as Evans and Manis contend that indisputability is, “so high, perhaps, that a proof of theism is in principle unattainable,” (87). His conclusion on indisputability can be considered conclusive since it has no undisputable proof as well, which makes it
Proofs
In the article “On Being an Atheist,” McCloskey delivers numerous opinions that seek to validate the non-existence of God. This argument is known as Atheism. He does this using quite a few claims made by theists. The claims are separated into numerous segments upon which he lays his contradicting opinions. In the beginning, he delivers a short summary of the arguments offered by theists. He refers to the theists as ‘proofs’ and claims that not a single one of the proofs make sufficient defenses to trust that God does exist. Though one of the proofs may not show the existence of God, all the proofs offer a solid indication for the existence of God as their agreement or lack of contradiction. However, …show more content…
The way that there are animals on the planet that don't know how they appeared means that some being more than likely was there with a specific goal because these animals would not be in existence since the trail could not be infinite (Evans and Manis, 73). On Earth, practically everything happening must be caused by something. For example, a tree may not fall if not damaged by lighting or excessively old, making it impossible to stand. Along these lines, the presence of the universe must be subject to a reason that was not caused in light of the fact that the causes are not unbounded. As indicated by Evans and Manis in the last passage on page 77, McCloskey could be correct that the cosmological contention, "does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncased cause," …show more content…
McCloskey does not agree with that argument and contends that, “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” He further contends that what we need to believe is that there was a malevolently powerful or an imperfect designer, (52). This is in contradictory to his argument on the breaking of nature, where there was an uncaused cause. Further, he has no undisputable proof that an imperfect designer was there, which makes his claims disputable, as well. By suggesting there was an imperfect designer of the world, he agrees to the fact that nature was broken at one time. On his idea of indisputability of a proof of God’s existence, he is wrong as Evans and Manis contend that indisputability is, “so high, perhaps, that a proof of theism is in principle unattainable,” (87). His conclusion on indisputability can be considered conclusive since it has no undisputable proof as well, which makes it