In the argument with McCloskey about using “proofs” to establish a case for Gods existence I would first agree with McCloskey that we should not use “proofs” for Gods existence since “proofs” cannot be a 100% proof of Gods existence. But there are two arguments that can help explain the existence of God. The first is the best explanation approach which is the best explanation for the things we witness. Another classical argument is cumulative case approach, in this approach we use more than one argument to make a case for Gods existence. Both of these approaches to the existence of God is easier to understand than just the “proof” argument. We must also understand the defeaters of the arguments and also that the God of the Bible is not where the focus is. God has minimalist qualities such as he created the universe, he is intelligent beyond our knowledge, he is morally perfect, and he is also a personal being.
With the discussion of cosmological arguments, McCloskey stated that just because the universe exists does not give reason to believe in God. I would first identify the objections that are carried when discussing the existence of the universe and the relationship to God that are found in the book Philosophy of Religion by C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis. Some believe that the universe has always existent with no starting point, my answer to that would be that the universe could have always existed and there for God could have always existed too. Another argument is if God made everything than who made God, that everything is a contingent being that has a cause for the reason why they or it exist, but God is not a contingent being therefore He did not need to be made for existence. We must then realize that not every contingent object in this world had an explanation some just exist for no reason.
I would answer McCloskey claim that the cosmological argument by referring to the probability of God instead of proofs. We have more probabilities of God existence than we have proof of His existence. Another point I would mention is that the world has order and therefore there must have been an intelligent being to design this order. For example of a life cycle, all living things start from something being born for example then have some sort of a life until the day they die. To have this order there must be some sort of designer that created this cycle of life.
I would start the discussion with McCloskey by stating that we do not need to use “proof” that God exists and there for understand that there is not 100% proof of Gods existence but we use the classical argument of Gods existence. But with the argument of teleological I can debate causality and also that it is not to show proof of Gods existence but to show the probability of Gods existence and the probability Gods creations. Stating that something would have had to cause the event to happen, God caused the design and purpose for the existence of the world and...