For over a millennia, philosophers and theologians alike have disputed the existence of God. From my perspective, it seems as though the atheists are on the attack against theists in the hopes to disprove the existence of God so that they find some comfort in their bleak outlook on mankind’s existence. McCloskey, an outspoken atheist, wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist” in which he examined and tried to disprove three arguments that he believed convinced many theists of God’s existence. These three arguments are referred to as a cosmological proof, a teleological proof, and an argument from design. While McCloskey’s article may resonate with some atheists and seem to be a valid attack on the theist’s belief, it fails to strike any real blows and instead shows the disparity that comes with atheistic beliefs.
In his article, McCloskey uses the term “proofs” rather than arguments when discussing the three ideas that he finds to be the most motivating forces for theist’s to theistic beliefs. In the article, he states that “move ordinary theist to their theism”(3). He believes that these “proofs” do not offer definitive evidence that proves God exists without even the slightest room for doubt; therefore, the belief in God should be completely abandoned. For an individual who claims to believe in a worldview based on self-reliance and science, this is completely contradictory. For example, with the same mindset and approach to arguments, an atheist should in turn abandon the evolutionary theory because it cannot be definitively proven. After viewing the presentation, there exist Christian refute the atheists’ rebuttals to these arguments. The Bible and knowledge of God and creation offers explanations for many of the “problems” atheist’s find in Christianity.
The first proof scrutinized by McCloskey is what is known as the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument claims that God exists because all things in the universe depend on something else for existence. McCloskey disputes the belief of God as the ultimate uncaused cause directly when he states, “The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being” (3). However, he does little to support his view against the argument aside from stating that “the defects of this argument are many” without extrapolating on this comment. McCloskey does not offer the atheist’s view for the cause of the universe, which is often belief that the universe came into existence secondary to a big bang. The problem with McCloskey’s stance is that even the Big Bang theory is in fact an uncaused cause for the universe and therefore falls under the cosmological argument. This is why he makes the statement that an uncaused cause does not necessarily have to be an intelligent cause, such as the big bang.
In Evan’s and Manis’ book “Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith”, the authors propose that the cosmological argument is valid because of the...