What is proof? Proof, like many words are reflected in multiple ways, having various attributes but in this instance, proof as defined by Google and similarly by Dr. Martin is “evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement”. According to the article “On Being an Atheist” by H. J McCloskey, he tried to reason why atheism, the lack of belief in God is more a comfortable belief than Christianity that believes in an Almighty, All Powerful God. He argues that if there was a God why would there be evil? Why would there also be pain and suffering to animals and innocent children? If I were a man/woman of no faith or belief that God exist or doesn’t exist and seeking to pick a side, McCloskey’s argument
…show more content…
He argues what is visible and present to me where as the presentation “Approaching the question of God’s Existence” basically says God exist and is all powerful but cannot explain why evil exist if God created the world and all of mankind in his perfect image insinuating that God is all good but what proof justifies those claims. In regard to McCloskey’s claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” Evans and Manis’ final paragraph doesn’t give much argument to dispute McCloskey’s claim. They basically state, things though unexplained is as is because of how God intended on them to be but with no definitive proof, why would one believe that things of nature and their natural occurrences are to be taken at face value and attributed to God’s doing. So again, I would have to agree with McCloskey because in a sense that giving credit to someone who just about every says did something, but no one bared witness to the things being done. Regarding the Teleological Argument where McCloskey attempts to discredit the existence of God, again based on the existence of …show more content…
Be it natural disaster, illness or at the hands of another human. He feels people should find more comfort with the idea that there isn’t a God who would allow any type of pain or suffering to occur to his people. I would have to say yes McCloskey’s claims are reasonable because if you think about it, how can the creator of the world who created and foresees all past and future occurrences willingly sit back as His children, His creations head blindly into any form of avoidable grief. Though I’m not sure if I’m on the right track but I would think of the mere conception and reproduction of a human and some animals lives, since we are classified in the same species. Having the ability to reproduce and keep life going is indisputable. If we are the results of evolution how is it that there are both males and females that are intended to connect in such a way that we can come as far as we have throughout time for McCloskey to have the opinion and literacy that he’s obtained to question the existence of God. Doctors are able to tell us a lot about the reproduction of humans and animals but no can definitively state how it came about for that to be possible and the transfer of DNA from parent to
He argues what is visible and present to me where as the presentation “Approaching the question of God’s Existence” basically says God exist and is all powerful but cannot explain why evil exist if God created the world and all of mankind in his perfect image insinuating that God is all good but what proof justifies those claims. In regard to McCloskey’s claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” Evans and Manis’ final paragraph doesn’t give much argument to dispute McCloskey’s claim. They basically state, things though unexplained is as is because of how God intended on them to be but with no definitive proof, why would one believe that things of nature and their natural occurrences are to be taken at face value and attributed to God’s doing. So again, I would have to agree with McCloskey because in a sense that giving credit to someone who just about every says did something, but no one bared witness to the things being done. Regarding the Teleological Argument where McCloskey attempts to discredit the existence of God, again based on the existence of …show more content…
Be it natural disaster, illness or at the hands of another human. He feels people should find more comfort with the idea that there isn’t a God who would allow any type of pain or suffering to occur to his people. I would have to say yes McCloskey’s claims are reasonable because if you think about it, how can the creator of the world who created and foresees all past and future occurrences willingly sit back as His children, His creations head blindly into any form of avoidable grief. Though I’m not sure if I’m on the right track but I would think of the mere conception and reproduction of a human and some animals lives, since we are classified in the same species. Having the ability to reproduce and keep life going is indisputable. If we are the results of evolution how is it that there are both males and females that are intended to connect in such a way that we can come as far as we have throughout time for McCloskey to have the opinion and literacy that he’s obtained to question the existence of God. Doctors are able to tell us a lot about the reproduction of humans and animals but no can definitively state how it came about for that to be possible and the transfer of DNA from parent to