Mccaloakey And Cosmological Proof Analysis

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