Philosophy Response Paper
Response Paper
Philosophy 201
Brittany Timblin
The existence of God has been a huge issue for many, many centuries. In H. J. McCloskey's article "On being an Atheist" he said that the cosmological and teleological arguments are false and that we need to forget the idea of God completely because there is no definitive proof. McCloskey's main issue with the idea of God is the presence of evil in the world. ca
The simple term "proof" is what McCloskey refers to as the arguments. McCloskey feels that because the proofs do not contain definitive evidence for God's existence, they should then be thrown out. This is not a correct way of thinking. The good Lord can not be proven or disproven scientifically. But once a person commits themselves to God and truly lets God in their hearts, this person will have a completely different mind set. Just because there is no definitive evidence of God, does not mean He does not exist.
In McCloskey's article he states that "the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being."{1} This appears to be his main issue with the cosmological argument. But Evans and Manis discuss a non-temporal form of the cosmological argument. They break down the non-temporal form into three different parts. The first one being that some contingent beings exist. Secondly, if any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist. And thirdly, a necessary being does exist. I feel that they realize the issue that the absolute reoccurring of evidence proves a contingent being exists might give the idea that there is not a definitive reason to the cause. The cause of the universe is necessary because the cause is God, and God's existence is what is uncaused and absolute.
Another statement made by McCloskey regarding the cosmological argument states that the argument "does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause."{2} Evans and Manis' response basically says that there are
Philosophy 201
Brittany Timblin
The existence of God has been a huge issue for many, many centuries. In H. J. McCloskey's article "On being an Atheist" he said that the cosmological and teleological arguments are false and that we need to forget the idea of God completely because there is no definitive proof. McCloskey's main issue with the idea of God is the presence of evil in the world. ca
The simple term "proof" is what McCloskey refers to as the arguments. McCloskey feels that because the proofs do not contain definitive evidence for God's existence, they should then be thrown out. This is not a correct way of thinking. The good Lord can not be proven or disproven scientifically. But once a person commits themselves to God and truly lets God in their hearts, this person will have a completely different mind set. Just because there is no definitive evidence of God, does not mean He does not exist.
In McCloskey's article he states that "the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being."{1} This appears to be his main issue with the cosmological argument. But Evans and Manis discuss a non-temporal form of the cosmological argument. They break down the non-temporal form into three different parts. The first one being that some contingent beings exist. Secondly, if any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist. And thirdly, a necessary being does exist. I feel that they realize the issue that the absolute reoccurring of evidence proves a contingent being exists might give the idea that there is not a definitive reason to the cause. The cause of the universe is necessary because the cause is God, and God's existence is what is uncaused and absolute.
Another statement made by McCloskey regarding the cosmological argument states that the argument "does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause."{2} Evans and Manis' response basically says that there are