Response To Mccloskey's 'On Being An Atheist'
KayCee Schielder
Response Paper
Liberty University Phil
The 1970’s philosopher McCloskey brings into question the three major arguments that are commonly presented against the question of God’s existence. McCloskey does so in an article entitled “On Being an Atheist.” In this article McCloskey commonly refers to these arguments as “proofs” rather than simply arguments. Furthermore, he argues that these “proofs” can’t be positively established and therefore one should throw said “proofs” out. In terms of a theistic view on the question of God’s existence theist openly admit that there arguments could indeed be defeasible. Theists acknowledge that there is a possibility that a defeater can be presented to shut down the conclusion …show more content…
McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being.” He goes on to state that because there are beings in the universe that do not have any explanation for their existence, one can infer that there must be some “ultimate” being responsible. The original cause of being is necessary because contingency cannot be infinite. The cosmological argument is the basis for why we may question the existence of anything, but it is not a sufficient enough answer to the bigger question of an all-powerful ultimate …show more content…
I think that in reading the article we can relate to McCloskey in some of his concerns. One can question is the most relatable, the idea that God exist and so does evil. Personally, I have wondered why God would allow such troublesome times upon those who ultimately do not deserve to receive them. I think it is normal as a Christian to question faith in God from time to time. When my daughter was sick recently, I remember asking God a hundred times why? What did she do to deserve such things? However, it is important to note that while we may question God for his reasons as to why certain things may occur, we do not ultimately rule out the fact that he exist entirely. I think that McCloskey had a few of his ideas on the correct path, but he failed to recognize that the arguments presented were just the most basic outline to the question of God’s existence. The teleological and cosmological arguments should be used as starting points and not as the ending arguments to the question. God is not defined, but he is always present and powerful. One should realize that there is only so much knowledge available at hand, and we can only debate so far with what we know. I would argue to McCloskey that I find greater comfort in the knowledge that there is indeed a God, and we are not just the products of some uncontrolled chaos. I choose to believe that God regulates the
Response Paper
Liberty University Phil
The 1970’s philosopher McCloskey brings into question the three major arguments that are commonly presented against the question of God’s existence. McCloskey does so in an article entitled “On Being an Atheist.” In this article McCloskey commonly refers to these arguments as “proofs” rather than simply arguments. Furthermore, he argues that these “proofs” can’t be positively established and therefore one should throw said “proofs” out. In terms of a theistic view on the question of God’s existence theist openly admit that there arguments could indeed be defeasible. Theists acknowledge that there is a possibility that a defeater can be presented to shut down the conclusion …show more content…
McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being.” He goes on to state that because there are beings in the universe that do not have any explanation for their existence, one can infer that there must be some “ultimate” being responsible. The original cause of being is necessary because contingency cannot be infinite. The cosmological argument is the basis for why we may question the existence of anything, but it is not a sufficient enough answer to the bigger question of an all-powerful ultimate …show more content…
I think that in reading the article we can relate to McCloskey in some of his concerns. One can question is the most relatable, the idea that God exist and so does evil. Personally, I have wondered why God would allow such troublesome times upon those who ultimately do not deserve to receive them. I think it is normal as a Christian to question faith in God from time to time. When my daughter was sick recently, I remember asking God a hundred times why? What did she do to deserve such things? However, it is important to note that while we may question God for his reasons as to why certain things may occur, we do not ultimately rule out the fact that he exist entirely. I think that McCloskey had a few of his ideas on the correct path, but he failed to recognize that the arguments presented were just the most basic outline to the question of God’s existence. The teleological and cosmological arguments should be used as starting points and not as the ending arguments to the question. God is not defined, but he is always present and powerful. One should realize that there is only so much knowledge available at hand, and we can only debate so far with what we know. I would argue to McCloskey that I find greater comfort in the knowledge that there is indeed a God, and we are not just the products of some uncontrolled chaos. I choose to believe that God regulates the