Mccaloakey And Cosmological Proof Analysis

Better Essays
In the reading McCloakey talks about proofs. He believes that three proofs move ordinary theist their theism. The first proof that he speaks about is cosmological, which is the chain that every created thing is being caused right now. There is a slight argument over the creation, who is God, having a cause in the beginning. It is believed that if the proofs fail from an observational perspective; then the proof is proven false. How can something that does not need to be given existence actually exist to give everything else existence? The preceding question is one that many atheist use to prove that theist are at a more uncomfortable state than atheist. Along with cosmological proof comes ontological proof. Here everything is based entirely …show more content…
So positive that he confidently states: “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was avoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” After reading this I feel as if McCloskey is blaming the evil doing on God. We in fact know that no man is able to answer the question of why men innocent people. We however can entail that men make their own decisions. It is the ones that believe in God that repent on his mistake made, while being in an evil mind set. I can argue and say that there was an evil spirit, one not of God, that caused the evil …show more content…
But how had I got this idea of “just” and “unjust”? What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies…. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple” (Lewis pg.14 I strongly feel when there is no pressure placed upon and individual by a higher being then her or she will always have a biased opinion of what is right and is wrong. My question to McCloskey is: “Where does his definition of evil come from”? Once people are on the same understanding of evil the explanation of free will be better understood. I often wonder if Atheist have a sense of something being wrong like theist have. I know that both can relate that genocide is evil doing. Atheist will find it hard to believe that it is not of God’s work because they do not know the great works of God. It is an unexplainable

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Moore shift. The G.E. Moore shift tells us to deny an opposing conclusion and use it to dispute their premises. For example, a theist could deny the atheist conclusion that God does not exist, by stating that there does not exist suffering that an omniscient being could stop without allowing an evil that is worse. Therefore, this benevolent God with stop any suffering that was not for the greater good or was in place of something worse, so God does…

    • 784 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Atheism Vs Religion

    • 760 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Introduction Atheism can be defined as a belief system that negates the existence of gods. Atheists believe that there is no god. Religion on the other hand is hinged on the belief in the existence of gods who are considered to be influential in the lives of the believers. There exists the idea that eventually, atheism will become more prominent than religion and this can be attributed to various factors. This essay intends to prove the idea that atheism would eventually trump over religion.…

    • 760 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He states that theists find faith in their lives and use it to understand God. However, McCloskey also tells us that his works are alleged and that we are not able to prove that he is “all-perfect” (McCloskey 1968, 52). He talks about all kinds of evil in the world including physical and moral, and because of these types of evils is the reason that atheists cannot believe in God. I would have to say that unfortunately not everyone is good, but we must remember that evil is coming from a person’s inner gut. There are many reasons that a person may have to turn to evil, such as protecting themselves from another evil source, this would be called “greater good”.…

    • 1165 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He says this only proves that God does not have ultimate power he restricts himself because he allowed good and bad to not exist without each other and he cannot stop it. Mackie also argues that “Evil is necessary as a means to good." He states that this also brings restriction to Gods omnipotence, because if evil is necessary, then why did God create it, he could have made the world in a different way where evil does not have to depend on good to exist, why did he not just create the good. Another…

    • 1163 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If he doesn’t, then it’s obvious why he could not be the source of life’s ultimate meaning. But what if God does exist? Given all the pain and suffering in the world, the only rational conclusion about God is that he’s either an imbecile or a psychopath. So, God’s existence could only make life more absurd, not less” her conclusion supports Meursault’s beliefs. Meursault's only benefit from believing in God is…

    • 786 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    God Allows Evil Essay

    • 1801 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Their argument is that if God really did exist (and he was a good/omnipotent God), then evil would not exist because he would not allow it to. These people are looking for answers as to why the cruelty and evil from events such the Crusades or the Holocaust were allowed to happen. Their argument comes from a place of compassion and justice for the victims of evil and cruelty (which eventually is all of us). This is a fair question that I believe deserves an answer. A second criticism of God is based on natural evil, rather than moral evil.…

    • 1801 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This can be a very difficult question to answer when trying to avoid minimizing problems others could be facing. The Naturalist response to why bad things happen to good people is mostly because they believe the universe to be a purposeless entity that does not care why things happen or who they happen to; they just happen and we are expected to deal with it (Carrier). This is not the case. In a Christian point of view, the universe has a purpose and it was created by God. We are all sinners where even the seemingly “perfect” individuals have done wrong or committed various sins.…

    • 2009 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Blaise Pascal's Argument

    • 1109 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Everyone involved knew it was the wrong thing to do, but did it anyway to keep themselves out of harm. Lewis also faced the claims that there might not even be moral law and there is nothing that needs to be explained. The doubters claim that these laws are just false idea that people came up with. The problem with this objection is that if there is no moral law then is impossible to explain human behavior to be good or evil. If someone denies moral law they are essentially making Adolf Hitler and Pope Francis the same amount of good and evil.…

    • 1109 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In the article presented On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey uses three of the more popular proofs that theists have argued for God’s existence, in an attempt to disprove that there is a God. First he discusses the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument makes an effort to conclude the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos or universe. The arguments are called first-cause arguments.…

    • 1768 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Only those pre-determined by mankind’s innate sinful nature. Everything has an explanation, which is better than the uncertainty that comes along with Libertarianism. How can actions be explained if no force or agent is to blame for their execution? It’s simply harder to imagine actions that have no reason for their execution and a God that doesn’t know which outcomes have become realities. All these ideas seem be based on loose speculation that don’t have much merit in terms of the bigger picture.…

    • 1013 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays