In the article “On Being an Atheist”, H. J. McCloskey tries to show that believing in God is unreasonable. McCloskey first tries to point out flaws in theism by trying to disprove the cosmological and the teleological arguments. After trying to show the flaws in the two argument he brings up the problem of evil to try to discredit theism as a self-contradictory belief. At the end of his article he tries to show his readers that atheism is comforting and that theism is not. When you go through McCloskey’s argument it shows many flaws in his reasoning as he wanted to show that it is impossible that there is a God. Throughout McCloskey’s article he refers to that theist do not a proofs that there is a God, thus they should not be used. The problem with this is that atheist and theist would have to purge of most of their arguments for the reason that most everything does not prove the argument.
McCloskey is correct that the “proofs” do not completely establish that there is a God, but they do give us a better understanding about the world and if there is a God. The cosmological and the teleological arguments are only argument, thus they do not completely prove that there is a God as Dr. Foreman says, “that these argument give us a best explanation” (Foreman). McCloskey is wrong in saying that the arguments should be abandoned for the reason that, even though that they do not completely prove that there is a God, they are “starting blocks” that need to be better refined to make a more complete argument for a necessary being, such as the God of Christianity. If you were to abandon these arguments that do not completely prove what they were trying to, you would have abandoned many other augments such as evolution.
There must be a necessarily being for the reason that at some time, even if it was in the infinite past, there must have been some kind of being or action that created the original activation energy of the universe. Everything around us had to have or has some type of energy that caused us to exist. McCloskey is wrong in saying that were is no proof that in the world existing. Steven Evans says that all things are being that exist and do not have to exist which are call contingent, thus there must be some type of necessarily being that caused all contingent beings to happen. McCloskey does not take into account that there must have been something that gave everything a cause in life.
The cosmological argument does not completely prove there is a God for the reason that the cause of the universe could be assumed to be the big bang theory not a necessarily being such as God. Although the cosmological does not completely prove there is a God, it does get the theologist closer to being able to prove there is indeed a God. When you pair the cosmological argument with other arguments, such as the teleological argument, it makes the argument for God even stronger. Again, these are incomplete arguments that need to be refined into better stronger...