The article “On Being an Athiest,” by H.J. McClosky, was very interesting. McClosky basically lets us know that as atheists they do not believe in God and why they do not believe in the God that theists do. According to McCloskey, there are three proofs for a theist to believe in God; the cosmological, teleological, and the argument from design.
McCloskey refers to the arguments for God as proofs, and he suggests that we cannot establish a case with these, so called, proofs. After watching the PointeCast presentation, I agree with this. Proofs, as we call them, were not designed to be one-hundred percent. The presentation talked about the proofs being more than just proving facts such as in mathematics. Outside of mathematics, nothing can actually be one-hundred percent proven. However, in the presentation it basically says that proofs per say should be thrown out and we should use, “the best explanation approach,” which is fdskafds. Let’s take a closer look at the cosmological argument.
In the cosmological argument, McCloskey argues that the “mere existence of the world continues no reason for believing in such a being” (McCloskey, 1968). McCloskey is telling us that God can’t just exist because the world does. First let’s talk about the being. A necessary being is someone that we do not need to have a detailed explanation of. So in fact, there must be some evidence that tells us where in fact the world came into existence right? It tells us in Genesis 1:1 (NIV) that, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Clearly, this is telling us that the cause for existence is God and He is the creator of the world. Evans lists the key elements for these arguments for this are: “some contingent being exists, if any contingent being exist, then a necessary being must exist, so therefore, there exists a necessary being” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p.70).
Also, in the cosmological argument, McCloskey argues that it “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all –perfect, uncaused cause” (McCloskey, 1968). Clearly McCloskey does not state that there is a God, but I believe that he does suggest that something or someone brought everything into existence. Even though this one argument only talks about or shows us existence of the universe and necessary being we must not forget about so many other important ones. If someone were to accept this as a conclusion to accepting God, they would only want to know more. This is only a tiny piece that allows us just a glimpse of God's knowledge. Let’s take a look at the McCloskey’s second argument, the teleological argument.
In the teleological argument, McCloskey argues “to get proof going genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968). McCloskey is basically stating in his argument that all examples must be indisputable, or they have no ground to stand on. I disagree. Go back to the beginning when we talked about the only thing that can...