Response to McCloskey Response 1

Abstract This is a response paper to an atheist, McCloskey, On being an Atheist. McCloskey believes there is no God and refutes God being divine in the the cosmological argument and the teleological argument as well. In this response paper, we will look at important topics such as, why is there evil in the world and the problem of evil. As well, we will learn on the arguments of free will with humankind. Last, we will learn McCloskeys views on atheism and decide more on how theism really plays a role.

A Response to McCloskeys Article McCloskey wrote an article in 1968 called, On Being an Atheist. He was from Australia. He brings up many questions throughout his article on how he feels strongly on atheism. He questions theist points and some of the ways they use terminology as in referring to God as a tranquilizer. McCloskey does not believe in the existence of evil. He brings up many points to challenge theism in all aspects of why they believe in what they believe. Why do they believe there is a God and why is there evil? The atheist makes his points across to why he believes there is no God. One must be right. I will go deeper into McCloskeys article and give a response to questions therefore.

Response to McCloskey Response 2

We will approach now, does God actually exist? by using three different approaches to this question. McCloskey does argue that theism uses proofs and often implies that they cannot establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned (McCloskey, 1968). First, McCloskey begins his article through objections he has about God, who he does not even believe in. He does this is by summarizing each of the arguments. He calls them proofs, concluding that neither of them, I will create enough reassurance or defense to believe in God (McCloskey, 1968). The best way to approach McCloskey is through the help defining these proofs and narrowing them down. McCloskey brings up some good points in his article, but these points are questionable. We will be using the cumulative case approach (Liberty, 18, 2011). It is a very strong approach; no approach will ever prove the existence of God but cumulative is very strong in support. First discussed is the Cosmological Argument. Which only proves some of the necessary beings that is the cause of all contingents being and their existence (Evans & Manis, 2009, p74). To elaborate some on contingent beings, McCloskey claims that the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being. From a non-temporal viewpoint, God is the necessary cause of the existence of the universe (Evans & Manis, 2009, p.77). There is a no natural reason that there are thousands of different animals, to humans, to different flowers, and foods. There is also no natural reason to that if you think about, why do you breathe? Without oxygen, we would not make it. On the other hand, we need water to survive for our bodies. We need food to to stay alive as well and we need the green plants and trees to produce the oxygen in the air so we can maintain life. There is an order to all of these necessary beings, food, animals, water, land that it is

Response to McCloskey Response 3

impossible not to see the hand of God in mere existence of the world. God wanted to create man in His image to glorify him and that we may enjoy life in this world. On the other hand, why does anything exist at all then? Theism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...C.S Lewis (Good reads, 2011). It seems that the necessary being who is God is the cause for contingent beings. People as contingent are not all knowing but God is Omniscient and all powerful, then he must have a cause for his existence. Everything in contingency has a cause. Mcloskey claims, to get the proof going, and genuine indisputable examples of design and purposes are needed (McCloskey, 1968). We will look at this from the teleological argument in depth indisputability and is it reasonable or not? Even flowers feed bees and bees give honey to bears because that is way the food chain works. There is order. Everything in nature always works the same way (McCloskey, 1968). An example of this is a rivers and salmon that cause a beneficial order. Throughout the year, salmon is the only fish that swims up streams. Its order never changes because it is a design of God. Second example would be of weather patterns, would be a snowflakes and how each snowflake has a different form, no snowflake is the same. This is also the, same with the human fingerprints; and no fingerprint has the same image. Only a designer of a universe can be this creative. Mcloskey implies that evolution is real and there is no need for a designer. However, Evan presents, the evolutionary process, even if it is a mechanical process, is simply whereby God, the intelligent designer, realizes his purpose (Evans & Manis, 2009 p.83). This is just as if a manmade machine has an intelligent designer and has a purpose; so does God as an intelligent designer.

Response to McCloskey Response 4

McCloskey claims that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world, it seems as if this statement holds some merit (McCloskey, 1968). McCloskey holds some truth to what he is saying here. What is truth? What is just or what are we that we should judge? Where is the handbook in life? God is omnipotent and omniscient. Albert Camus once said, "Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is" (Good reads, 2011). There is evil and injustice in this world. Nevertheless, man had all the answers to Gods design, purposes then we would be God, and we are not him. Christians and non-Christians deal with imperfections and evils of this world daily. Injustice can fall on anyone at anytime. The world can be unjust with typhoons and earthquakes as well. When I was a child, I knew what was good and what was evil. No one had to tell me who God was. I knew in my heart. I clung on to the goodness of knowing what was right through Gods divine nature and I also knew when I saw in evil and ran from it. It was simple to me, a five year old who heard the Gospel from a non-Christian family in the song, Away in a Manger. Sometimes in life, we make what God wants to show his creation very hard and he just wants us to be still. We will look at McCloskeys objections from a logical form. McCloskey raises the issue up several times on the topic on the presence of evil in the world (McCloskey, 1968). It would be nice if we could eliminate evil from this world. God cannot do what is logically impossible who by being omnipotent; he cannot create a square circle or bring it about in addition to 2+2=5, because it contradicts states of affairs that are not possibilities (Evans & Manis, 2009 p.161). The problem is there are so many definitions of what evil is in this world. What is the correct

Response to McCloskey Response 5

definition? If you honestly knew, would you want to get rid of it? Is not God holy and then would that not make us holy? What is the true definition of evil? With McCloskeys argument asking, might God so have easily arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely choose what is right (McCloskey, 1968,). In response to his argument, is not. If this was the case then we could say murder is good and eating one another. We would have no clarity of what is right and wrong. There is a right and there is considered a wrong. He gave us freedom but to be good stewards of this freedom. Planting states a view on freedom, that if a person has a genuinely free choice, what the person will do in that situation is solely up to the person and not to God (Evans & Manis, 2009 p.164).Is there consequence for are free will? Example would be, if I ate ten brownies a day by free will, eventually I will gain a few pound but if I chose to eat carrot sticks every day I might lose weight. McCloskey claims that atheism is more comforting than theism. William Lane Craig makes a statement, If there is no God, then man and the universes are doomed and we are like prisoners condemned to death and wait for are unavoidable execution (Craig). Is it because they have no real definition of the meaning of what is right and what is wrong? In Conclusion, I do not agree with McCloskeys views. There is a divine order that if you just study it can show Gods handiwork. Man is not perfect due to evil in this world but does not make God and less than he is.

References

Response to McCloskey Response 6

Craig. The Absurdity of Life without God. Referenced from: http://bb7.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid12136952-dt-content-rid-29591937_1/courses/PHIL201_D23_201130/CraigReading_3rdEd %281%29.pdf Evans, C. Zachary, M (2009). Philosophy of Religion, 2nd Ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Goodreads (2011) . Referenced From: http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1069006.C_S_Lewis Liberty Blackboard.Presentation18 - Approaching the Question of God's Existence McCloskey, J (1968 Feb) On Being an Atheist. Question 1. Referenced from: http://bb7.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-12084021-dt-content-rid28853165_1/courses/PHIL201_D23_201130/PHIL201_LUO_8wk_MASTER_ImportedContent_2 0110513090642/PHIL201_DLP_8wk_DEV_ImportedContent_20110208104730/PHIL201_DLP_ 8wk_MASTER_ImportedContent_20101122121953/About%20Your%20Course/Essential %20Elements/Response%20Paper/McCloskeyArticle.pdf