For centuries atheists and theists have debated one of the most important questions to date; does God exist? Are there hard evidences to prove His existence if he truly is real? Most importantly, why is there so much evil in this world? These questions cannot be easily answered, nor will there ever be a definite answer for them from either point of view; however, they are still thought provoking and great questions to explore and discuss to find a better understanding of why we believe what we believe, and why others may have a different view. In his article “On being an Atheist”, H. J. McCloskey attempts to inform other atheists that the reasoning theists have for believing in God is not feasible by presenting them in the view of an atheist.
…show more content…
Evans and Manis best described it to be, “attempts to infer the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos or universe” (Evans). The cosmological argument essentially states that the universe could not come into existence on its own, but that there must be a first cause. Looking at this argument from a general standpoint everything has a beginning- and a creator so to speak- our lives would not be if it were not for our great grandparents, their children, and so on. So, looking at the existence of God from the cosmological argument point of view the universe first needed a creator or God to come into existence. By deducing this, Theists see God to be a necessary being, and our entire universe is His doing and even we are His creation. What McCloskey claims however is that the world itself is not grounds for saying it is proof that God does exist. Of course, the cosmological argument is by no means hard evidence or facts to prove Gods existence, however it does offer a in depth argument that points in that …show more content…
McCloskey disputes this by saying “genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed “for this argument to even hold up. As far as philosophical standards go it has never been a requirement for an argument of any one belief to be indisputable. Furthermore, just as the cosmological argument, the teleological argument was never created to be indisputable, it was created to help us understand what it is and why we believe what we believe. Just by looking at the world around us, it is impossible to say there is no higher being that is highly intelligent creating what we see. The beauty of not only Earth by the universe itself is incredible and a masterpiece, so is the human race- everything is uniquely designed with very intricate details. These factors alone are good enough to entertain the idea of a creator. However, it is safe to say McCloskey is correct to an extent that teleological argument does not have sufficient “indisputable” evidence to a creator, however that is not even relevant to initial argument for theists. McCloskey discussed that evolution displaced the need for a creator, however that is neither true nor false- it is un-known. Truthfully Science is based on a ton of theories, which a theist could argue that not all of it is based on cold hard facts
Evans and Manis best described it to be, “attempts to infer the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos or universe” (Evans). The cosmological argument essentially states that the universe could not come into existence on its own, but that there must be a first cause. Looking at this argument from a general standpoint everything has a beginning- and a creator so to speak- our lives would not be if it were not for our great grandparents, their children, and so on. So, looking at the existence of God from the cosmological argument point of view the universe first needed a creator or God to come into existence. By deducing this, Theists see God to be a necessary being, and our entire universe is His doing and even we are His creation. What McCloskey claims however is that the world itself is not grounds for saying it is proof that God does exist. Of course, the cosmological argument is by no means hard evidence or facts to prove Gods existence, however it does offer a in depth argument that points in that …show more content…
McCloskey disputes this by saying “genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed “for this argument to even hold up. As far as philosophical standards go it has never been a requirement for an argument of any one belief to be indisputable. Furthermore, just as the cosmological argument, the teleological argument was never created to be indisputable, it was created to help us understand what it is and why we believe what we believe. Just by looking at the world around us, it is impossible to say there is no higher being that is highly intelligent creating what we see. The beauty of not only Earth by the universe itself is incredible and a masterpiece, so is the human race- everything is uniquely designed with very intricate details. These factors alone are good enough to entertain the idea of a creator. However, it is safe to say McCloskey is correct to an extent that teleological argument does not have sufficient “indisputable” evidence to a creator, however that is not even relevant to initial argument for theists. McCloskey discussed that evolution displaced the need for a creator, however that is neither true nor false- it is un-known. Truthfully Science is based on a ton of theories, which a theist could argue that not all of it is based on cold hard facts