McCloskey tempts the theists to look for answers and reasoning in a different way with his statement. In response, Evan and Manis say that the thrust of the non-temporal argument is that present existence of contingent objects requires that there be a necessary being” (Evans & Manis, 2009). As mentioned McCloskey claims that everything requires a cause for its existence; therefore God requires a cause for his existence. Evans and Manis discuss it this way, the argument assumes that all contingent beings require a cause for their existence; however, God is not a contingent being; only a self-existent or necessary being can qualify for the title of “God.” (Evans & Manis, 2009). Therefore, something distinct from the universe, some unconditional agent would be necessary to have created the universe.
McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-respect, uncaused cause.” In light of Evans and Manis, we might response that the argument from design only seems to show the existence of a necessary being that is the cause of the universe. (Evans & Manis, 2009). They not only say there is evidence to support the idea of a cause but go on to assert that not only can the cause exist but that …show more content…
This for Mackie clearly shows a “failure” on God’s part and “is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good.” (Evans and Manis, 2009) On the other hand Plantinga asserts a “libertarian view of freedom…” which holds that “a person has a genuinely free choice, what the person will do in that situation is solely up to the person and not up to God.” (Evans and Manis, 2009) In the end, it seems that the argument for free will does not show God’s failure in this case but his
McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-respect, uncaused cause.” In light of Evans and Manis, we might response that the argument from design only seems to show the existence of a necessary being that is the cause of the universe. (Evans & Manis, 2009). They not only say there is evidence to support the idea of a cause but go on to assert that not only can the cause exist but that …show more content…
This for Mackie clearly shows a “failure” on God’s part and “is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good.” (Evans and Manis, 2009) On the other hand Plantinga asserts a “libertarian view of freedom…” which holds that “a person has a genuinely free choice, what the person will do in that situation is solely up to the person and not up to God.” (Evans and Manis, 2009) In the end, it seems that the argument for free will does not show God’s failure in this case but his