H J McCloskey article On Being an Atheist discusses the question of, if God is really real and if in fact there truly is a God do we have any proof to show this. McCloskey does his best to argue of God’s presence by using Theistic viewpoints such as cosmological proof, teleological proof and the argument from design. We can see from his thoughts that many of them could be recognized as truth, but none of them however are verified. McCloskey 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 (McCloskey). McCloskey argument was against the use of three Theistic proofs cosmological argument, theological argument, and the argument from design.
…show more content…
The cosmos have a direct link to the presence of God that is often-not mentioned to as the “first-cause argument. This belief is that God is the first cause of present existence on the universe. Cosmological proof allows us to theorize the presence of God, but according to McCloskey the people should not be able to theorize God as he must be all-knowing, invincible, almighty, and even more beyond that. McCloskey is looking for a standing root as a mandatory source for God to be part of the universe. This is because he does not believe that people can be warranted in believing the universe needs a cause. He believes that everything must happen for a reason and that, that reason must have a certainty on the universe to cause it to happen. McCloskey says that “all we can infer from casual argument is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe” (McCloskey). The point that is missing from McCloskey belief is the rules of logic, at which he is unable to describe how the power really exists. He ends his argument by stating that “a malevolent powerful being or… a well-intentioned muddler” (McCloskey) should exist and that a creator determined by the world imperfections and the presence of …show more content…
Theological proof is the intelligent creator by apparent evidence design in the physical world and natural world. This argument starts out with the cosmos as well, but has a created purpose for how the universe come to occur by the suggestion of intelligent design. McCloskey tells of individual variances between argument form Design and theological argument, but never goes into detail of the diverse differences. “…all we should be entitled to conclude was that there was a powerful, malevolent, or imperfect planner or designer” (McCloskey) what McCloskey is arguing is that this is insufficient evidence to prove that God truly exist and in fact believes that nature is broken. He believes for this evidence to be true sincere examples must be presented for design. The difficult issue becomes when McCloskey cannot live by these same standards himself. Evans and Mains state that “the evolutionary process, even if it is a mechanical process, is simply that means whereby God, the intelligent designer, realizes his purposes” (Evan, 83). McCloskey believes that evolution does not exists and due to this there is no need for designer however, the world was intended to be the way it is by God thus creating no need for a
The cosmos have a direct link to the presence of God that is often-not mentioned to as the “first-cause argument. This belief is that God is the first cause of present existence on the universe. Cosmological proof allows us to theorize the presence of God, but according to McCloskey the people should not be able to theorize God as he must be all-knowing, invincible, almighty, and even more beyond that. McCloskey is looking for a standing root as a mandatory source for God to be part of the universe. This is because he does not believe that people can be warranted in believing the universe needs a cause. He believes that everything must happen for a reason and that, that reason must have a certainty on the universe to cause it to happen. McCloskey says that “all we can infer from casual argument is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe” (McCloskey). The point that is missing from McCloskey belief is the rules of logic, at which he is unable to describe how the power really exists. He ends his argument by stating that “a malevolent powerful being or… a well-intentioned muddler” (McCloskey) should exist and that a creator determined by the world imperfections and the presence of …show more content…
Theological proof is the intelligent creator by apparent evidence design in the physical world and natural world. This argument starts out with the cosmos as well, but has a created purpose for how the universe come to occur by the suggestion of intelligent design. McCloskey tells of individual variances between argument form Design and theological argument, but never goes into detail of the diverse differences. “…all we should be entitled to conclude was that there was a powerful, malevolent, or imperfect planner or designer” (McCloskey) what McCloskey is arguing is that this is insufficient evidence to prove that God truly exist and in fact believes that nature is broken. He believes for this evidence to be true sincere examples must be presented for design. The difficult issue becomes when McCloskey cannot live by these same standards himself. Evans and Mains state that “the evolutionary process, even if it is a mechanical process, is simply that means whereby God, the intelligent designer, realizes his purposes” (Evan, 83). McCloskey believes that evolution does not exists and due to this there is no need for designer however, the world was intended to be the way it is by God thus creating no need for a