H.J. McCloskey wrote a journal article in 1968 called “On Being an Atheist” which denounced the existence of the Intelligent Designer. He uses different tactics to try and prove that there could not be a God. McCloskey shows that his argument for atheism is not sound as the evidence he proves in his article can be combatted with well-thought responses provided by philosophers and Christians in order to show there is the possibility God exists.
To illustrate the weak points in McCloskey’s article, I will start with his use of “proofs”. McCloskey uses “proofs” in his arguments when combating against whether God is real. He believes since it cannot be proved that God exists that anything that cannot be proven is invalid and should be omitted (On Being an Atheist, 1968). Dr. Mark Foreman says when arguing if something is true, do not use “proofs” as no matter what nothing can be proved including God (Foreman, 2012). Nothing can be positively proved throughout the universe, so the method of proving is invalid. For example, I cannot prove without a doubt that I am truly sitting, but that does not mean that I nor the chair do not exist. There still is the possibility that I exist and so does the chair, just as there is the possibility that God exists as well. McCloskey should be careful using “proofs” in order to establish a case that God does not exist as other methods can be brought to light as to whether they can be accurately proven to be real.
Additionally, McCloskey claims that since the universe exists that there cannot be a being who created it (On Being an Atheist, 1968, p. 51). C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis in Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith suggest, when discussing the non-temporal form of the cosmological argument, that that God is necessary in order for the universe to be created as it gives a cause. In order for contingent beings to exist, there must be a necessary being as there has to be an ultimate cause for a contingent being’s existence (Evans & Manis, 2009, pp. loc. 654-680). Evans and Manis bring a strong argument against McCloskey’s claim to further that McCloskey’s points are weak and not well-thought through to make a strong stance for atheism.
Subsequently, Evans and Manis continue to show an opposite side to McCloskey's statement which he says that the argument does not claim that the cause is all-powerful and all-perfect as the most this could entitle is that the cause of the universe is simply powerful and imperfect enough to create the universe (On Being an Atheist, 1968, p. 51). Evans and Manis state that the argument at its simplest form shows a necessary being has to exist in order for the cause to create the world (Evans & Manis, 2009, pp. loc. 762-766). This alone opens up the door for people to ask questions about God which is opposite from what McCloskey feels will happen.
Furthermore, McCloskey goes on to write “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are...