Response Paper H. J. McCloskey is a proclaimed atheist, and in his article, “On being an Atheist” he explains his views in a unique way from the 1960’s while refuting various arguments and views held by theists. McCloskey brings up a whole pot of valid points in his arguments. However, Evans & Manis, the authors of Philosophy of Religion: Think About Faith and Holmes, the author of Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions are able to counter and bring up many points and McCloskey’s points concerning the existence of God and the truth that the world was created by an intelligent designer.
Mr. McCloskey pointed out in more than one occasion the existence of the universe is not enough to show that there is a God. I believe that there are multiple options for our world and the universe is the “handiwork of an omnipotent, all-perfect being” (McCloskey 1968). This universe could have been made by the big band theory but it could have just had a big boom and just fell into place but we will never really know.
The Cosmological Argument is trying to prove that it is not trying to simply say that the universe does not exist to someone and it had to be here from the very beginning. It’s my opinion the first-cause is the best approach because “they attempt to …show more content…
A phrase that he uses while writing is one that says, “acts of God.” When McCloskey writes that, he is basically saying that all of the evil that is present is there because of God. When thinking of that phrase, I think that it is one that is most typically used when something that whether it is planned or unplanned it is an act of evil and this is an “act of God.” This is when we must decide to understand to try to understand our own ability to the laws of nature or the laws of nature themselves? These laws all must follow specific patterns. If there were no pattern for those specific laws to follow or no consequences for our actions then why would there have been a creation that took place over 2000 years
Mr. McCloskey pointed out in more than one occasion the existence of the universe is not enough to show that there is a God. I believe that there are multiple options for our world and the universe is the “handiwork of an omnipotent, all-perfect being” (McCloskey 1968). This universe could have been made by the big band theory but it could have just had a big boom and just fell into place but we will never really know.
The Cosmological Argument is trying to prove that it is not trying to simply say that the universe does not exist to someone and it had to be here from the very beginning. It’s my opinion the first-cause is the best approach because “they attempt to …show more content…
A phrase that he uses while writing is one that says, “acts of God.” When McCloskey writes that, he is basically saying that all of the evil that is present is there because of God. When thinking of that phrase, I think that it is one that is most typically used when something that whether it is planned or unplanned it is an act of evil and this is an “act of God.” This is when we must decide to understand to try to understand our own ability to the laws of nature or the laws of nature themselves? These laws all must follow specific patterns. If there were no pattern for those specific laws to follow or no consequences for our actions then why would there have been a creation that took place over 2000 years