The arguments between atheists and theists have been the same since the dawn of time and will continue until the end of time; however, it is imperative to examines one life and one’s views to see if what one is believing is true or false. Plato said it best when he said “The unexamined life is not worth living”. Therefore, it is imperative to examine one’s theological views to determine if one is believing false beliefs or if one is actually believing in the truth. McCloskey’s article On Being an Atheist creates a great opportunity to test one’s faith whether atheist or theist and provides thought provoking arguments regardless of religious standpoint.
McCloskey is right in that “proofs” cannot absolutely establish the existence of God; however, …show more content…
Foreman states that when approaching theism one should not look at proofs but at an argument with the best explanation (Foreman). This approach agrees with McCloskey in that proofs should not be a basis for our thesis. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the existence of God cannot be proved completely. Additionally, Foreman states that Christians understand that their opinion is defeasible, showing that it is possible their viewpoint could be wrong. It is almost impossible to definitively say whether atheists or theists are right but one can make an educated projection with what knowledge on what is already known on the subject to determine their own believes.
The cosmological argument is an idea that supports the existence of God. It states that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence and must therefore have something that exists independently of the …show more content…
Putting the whole argument on whether God is existent or not to the side, believing in God instills hope in people lives. People without the hope of a higher power often find emptiness in their life and wonder is there a deeper meaning to their life if there even is one. Regardless of whether there is a God or not it provides more hope in one’s life compared to one believing in people evolved from nothing and there is no more to life than living and dying. Often people without the Lord feel an emptiness in their life and rightly so, God is a hole that nothing can fill except God
McCloskey is right in that “proofs” cannot absolutely establish the existence of God; however, …show more content…
Foreman states that when approaching theism one should not look at proofs but at an argument with the best explanation (Foreman). This approach agrees with McCloskey in that proofs should not be a basis for our thesis. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the existence of God cannot be proved completely. Additionally, Foreman states that Christians understand that their opinion is defeasible, showing that it is possible their viewpoint could be wrong. It is almost impossible to definitively say whether atheists or theists are right but one can make an educated projection with what knowledge on what is already known on the subject to determine their own believes.
The cosmological argument is an idea that supports the existence of God. It states that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence and must therefore have something that exists independently of the …show more content…
Putting the whole argument on whether God is existent or not to the side, believing in God instills hope in people lives. People without the hope of a higher power often find emptiness in their life and wonder is there a deeper meaning to their life if there even is one. Regardless of whether there is a God or not it provides more hope in one’s life compared to one believing in people evolved from nothing and there is no more to life than living and dying. Often people without the Lord feel an emptiness in their life and rightly so, God is a hole that nothing can fill except God