Submitted By Tony34
In “On Being an Atheist” McCloskey provided many arguments that seek justifications on God not existing aka Atheism. He does this by making multiple claims by theists on an overall level that focused on the God that was Christian. His claims are put into numerous sections upon which his counters arguments. In the beginning he delivers a small overview of the arguments that were presented by the theists, which he calls “proofs," saying that it isn't enough to justify that God does exist. Even though there is one proof that doesn’t show God existing, if you put them all together they do provide strong evidence that God does exist although they don’t have many logical answers. But if God does exist it is based on such proofs or objections are arguable.
McCloskey first suggests that proofs don’t ultimately state that God exists, so they should be forgotten. Only problem is that he doesn’t make efforts on defining evil and to help it he doesn’t explain it either. He even tries to disgrace everybody’s belief in God, by attacking the origin of the belief but didn’t address why your faith isn’t valid even if they look at all of the evidence before accepting to be Christian. To better understand his argument, you must understand relativism stating that all points of view are all valid and true to the individual, but this does not prove there is or is not God. For Christians, the truth is found the words Jesus spoke in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life…” He describes God as tired, harsh, belligerent, heartless, unskilled, hard and disciplinary. McCloskey puts into view a cause and effect dispute vague costs. He states that the best evidence that God doesn’t exist is all of the evil acts of the men and women and that he evades ethics and stresses on evil because principles are tougher proof that a smart creator planned the world. This results in McCloskey coping with the big question of “Why is there evil and grief in the world?”
McCloskey first talks about the cosmological argument, he first argues, “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being (McCloskey 51).” With the known fact that there are in fact creatures in this universe but we do not know how they came into this world is proof that there is some being in order for all of this to happen. The creatures wouldn’t have existed because the trace is not endless (Manis and Evans 73). In the universe, almost everything that happened had to have been created by something or somewhat, for example, a tree cannot fall if it isn’t cut or too old to live anymore. Consequently, the presence of the cosmos has to stay in need of a reason that remained not a source since the origins remain not vast. Going back to Manis and Evans last passage on page 77, McCloskey possibly may have been correct that the argument, “Does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause (McCloskey 51)."
On the subject of the theological argument, the strategy argument opposes an argument founded on intellect regarding the method the domain originated to stay in actuality. Contesting the dispute McCloskey states, “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” He additionally advises that whatever we require to have faith in is that there was an unkindly dominant or flawed creator, (Page 52). It remains in opposing to his disagreement on the infringement of Mother Nature, where an uncaused basis existed. Additional, McCloskey has no unquestionable evidence that a defective creator remained present, which marks his statements arguable, too. By way of proposing there existed an inadequate inventor of the universe, he comes to an agreement towards the information that environment existed wrecked at any time. Proceeding with his knowledge of beyond doubt of the evidence of God's being, he remains incorrect by means of Evans and Manis argue that uncontestable remains, "so high, perhaps, that a proof of theism is in principle unattainable (Page 87)." McCloskey's assumption on unquestionable is reflected conclusively ever since the situation devises not at all definite evidence too, which creates it irrational. Evans and Manis proposed a sample of the plan, even though it's incontrovertible, proving the presence of a creator of space. This similar case attempts to contradict the dispute through means of actual being cases of mortal foundation. Itis an intellectual case that proposes human existence make use of their brains to create technology to play the role that it was created to. It recommends that a technology made from humans originated from an intellectual proposal, in the event that the resources are logically joined together. Likewise, ordinary belongings are present because they are created of parts, that are joined together to accomplish specific goals. So, substances in life possibly will be the concern of knowledgeable plans as of a number of duties, put as one by means of an unnatural creature. Even though debatable, the design remains fairly substantial seeing all God's creations are created by multiple parts that are put into one. Lastly, McCloskey recommends that since evolution occurs, it supplants the requirement for a creator. Nonetheless, you might say God created the universe to maintain evolving in it avoiding the need of having to redo it. All the more so this being true evolution still replaces the necessity for a creator, suggesting that just as the technology, equipment accomplishes their reason of remaining created, as well as God achieving His Idea. For example, a computer is made to perform diverse commitments and is capable of changing to aid others. On the contrary, God made animals purposely so that they will evolve. So, with evolving, His plan of the universe achieved its main goal. McCloskey additionally claims that the existence of faultiness and evil is evidence that the godly flawlessness of God, in fact, doesn't exist. Being true that evil and faultiness exist in the universe, he using this as evidence that the heavenly reason of the universe being untrue is substantial. Nevertheless, retorting after the viewpoint of Evans and Manis on evil and failure, you could dispute that the cosmological argument, in fact, doesn't resist a flawless world deprived of evil. Reasonably, it disputes that a cause that was in purpose to happen (uncaused cause) of a first cause occurred, which, in fact, suggest perfection of lack of evil. As a result, lacking such a grasp of the cosmological argument, McCloskey, being an atheist, is capable of undertaking the spirituality of the universe or its reason is somewhat supposed to be realized (Evans and Manis 77). Further, with the matter on evil, McCloskey disputes that atheists remain unaffected by it as theists are, or existence is better relaxed being an atheist. It is unreasonable seeing that faultiness and evil doesn't discriminate among theists and atheists. Even if it did, atheists being comfortable more than theists are would be true. On the other hand, pain and evil along with faultiness are everywhere in the universe and alter every living creature in the world. Furthermore, in what way would an individual have faith in that evil if the opposite, being goodness, doesn't exist? Free will is mentioned in his article too, and it is found in every human being, it gives them the choice to do whatever they want in the world. For example, to believe that there is a God or isn't one. McCloskey asks, "More basically, is it not the case the complete virtue is compatible with the possession of free will, might not God have very easily so arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely chose what is right?" But for all of this to be true a right, and wrong must exist at the same time. Also, it means that only two options exist it the world, right and wrong, this also being untrue. At the end of the article, McCloskey disputes that theism isn't as comfortable as atheism. He says that pain is in fact evil and if God does exist then he would take it all away for us because it is evil. But even if there was not God then our whole life would have no meaning or purpose. Meaning that life here on earth is meaningless when they finally die. So, it there's no meaning to live a better life then why do atheists want to live a good life that is free of pain and immorality. It wouldn't matter how they lived then. In conclusion, McCloskey's makes it clear with arguments that counter God existing, but they don't hold up much. Seeing that he countered the proofs that the theists gave for God existing, making him have no proof of God not existing. He should have anticipated that the theists would have guaranteed proof that God existed. He should have had undisputable evidence of his own to his side of the argument. He first writes off that if a creator ever existed it would be exiled by the theory of evolution. That also might not even be true because of an example that was provided in addition to the known fact that all of the creations in the world started somewhere.