The article H. J. McCloskey wrote, On Being an Atheist, discusses how arguments presented are proof that God does not exist. As I learned from Dr. Foreman’s presentation, Arguments for God’s Existence, there is nothing that can be proven with one-hundred percent certainty. We need not use arguments, but we should use evidence, just as an attorney in building a case against or for an accused. (Foreman, Approaching the Question of God 's Existence n.d.) Evidence sometimes is circumstantial, full of details and pointing indirectly toward the correct conclusion without absolutely proving it. (Merriam-Webster n.d.) This style of evidence building can promote the findings presented so one can come to an intelligent conclusion. Circumstantial evidence
…show more content…
McCloskey is just riding the coat tail of his argument from the cosmological discussion on design, that there is no tangible proof that is indisputable. This style of debate could proceed forever because the atheist cannot provide proof of indisputable evidence either. As Foreman discussed in his presentation, Arguments for Gods Existence, no one has proof. Many things cannot be proven because of the absence of defeaters. So indisputability is not a reasonable suggestion by McCloskey. The more palatable investigation process I believe is The Best Explanation …show more content…
One main issue is that the teleological and cosmological arguments are alike in the sense they are both limited. (Evans 2009) Each argument does not explain anything about the theistic God. One standing is that the designer must be intelligent and personal but not necessary and the other stands the designer was necessary and personal. They never try and dispute evil or divineness as McCloskey alludes to. As Evans and Manis explain the arguments are just a mere wedge to opening up the understanding. McCloskey would have been served well not to lean towards evil as positive proof evidence but to slide through the wedged opening of understanding to seek more knowledge. To state what he believes the obvious to be about evil and unmoral acts, McCloskey would have to have a benchmark for evil, against a benchmark for good. As Plato states, “the source of all reality and truth must be the “Form of the Good” and, religiously, to the biblical teaching that moral obligations must be understood in terms of their connection to God’s requirements of us.” (Evans 2009) Whether McCloskey wants to admit it or not he seems to be basing his findings from the benchmark of the viewpoint that there is a
McCloskey is just riding the coat tail of his argument from the cosmological discussion on design, that there is no tangible proof that is indisputable. This style of debate could proceed forever because the atheist cannot provide proof of indisputable evidence either. As Foreman discussed in his presentation, Arguments for Gods Existence, no one has proof. Many things cannot be proven because of the absence of defeaters. So indisputability is not a reasonable suggestion by McCloskey. The more palatable investigation process I believe is The Best Explanation …show more content…
One main issue is that the teleological and cosmological arguments are alike in the sense they are both limited. (Evans 2009) Each argument does not explain anything about the theistic God. One standing is that the designer must be intelligent and personal but not necessary and the other stands the designer was necessary and personal. They never try and dispute evil or divineness as McCloskey alludes to. As Evans and Manis explain the arguments are just a mere wedge to opening up the understanding. McCloskey would have been served well not to lean towards evil as positive proof evidence but to slide through the wedged opening of understanding to seek more knowledge. To state what he believes the obvious to be about evil and unmoral acts, McCloskey would have to have a benchmark for evil, against a benchmark for good. As Plato states, “the source of all reality and truth must be the “Form of the Good” and, religiously, to the biblical teaching that moral obligations must be understood in terms of their connection to God’s requirements of us.” (Evans 2009) Whether McCloskey wants to admit it or not he seems to be basing his findings from the benchmark of the viewpoint that there is a