Mccloskey's Arguments Against The Existence Of God

In his 1968 article, McCloskey made a strong case against the existence of God, while defending his stand on atheism. His arguments are centered around the three proofs of that religious people use to explain why they believe in God. Over and above, he argues unapologetically against faith, and questions the existence of a good God in such a world full of evil and moral decadence. The question of morality does not escape him too, and in his submission is that there is more solace in atheism than in believing God and therefore it is easier to be an atheist than it is to be a believer in God. This paper delves into the intricacies of his argument and critiques his approach while responding to some of age-old pertinent questions he raises. The ontological proof, according to McCloskey, does not hold any value and therefore has nothing to do with why theists believe in the first place (). There is no discussion around this theory. There is, however, an obvious interest in trivializing the cosmological proof of God’s existence. This is the …show more content…
It goes against the very matrix of free will. Somehow, God is hugely interested in humans being able to make choices and creating such a human being would negate his intention. He created everything perfect and even said it is good. If man were to be capable of doing good alone and no evil. A quandary presents though, why God would create a person with the ability to commit evil, and even sometimes the will to indulge in evil yet punish the person afterward if they commit the evil. Nonetheless, the will of God is for anyone who does good to do it because it is the right thing to do and not because they are compelled, or they fear the consequences, or intrinsically they have been only wired to do good deeds. This is the explanation why the evil in the world is a purely as a result of man’s ability and willingness to do