H. J Mccloskey Analysis

Words: 2762
Pages: 12

Running head: H. J. mccloskey?s ?on being an atheist? 1
H. J. mccloskey?s ?on being an atheist? 10
Philosophic argument on God?s existence in response to H. J. McCloskey?s ?On Being an Atheist?
Eric M. Griggs
Liberty University ? PHIL 201-B53

Philosophic argument on God?s existence in response to H. J. McCloskey?s ?On Being an Atheist?
McCloskey?s article, written by a professed atheist, is as expected anti-religious and particularly anti-Christian. McCloskey makes numerous attempts in this article to disprove any belief in God, but fails miserably as he is not very knowledgeable in regards to his use of poorly perceived ideas about God. The author has little validity as his ideas are mostly conjecture, meaning his article denoting God
…show more content…
McCloskey argues that this, and the idea of design is a more satisfying argument. One could argue that when considering the teleological argument, it is the same basis as the cosmological argument, in that both base their argument on a divine God of the universe, with the exception that the teleological argument refers to design as the purpose, and order, of the universe. The article list claims by McCloskey that ?to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed? (McCloskey, 1968). The argument does address according to McCloskey, there is no proof the universe has confirmation, and indisputable examples of having a purpose, or of having a design. Therefore, McCloskey says there is no proof, cosmologically, or theologically that God is designer of the universe. His position is that the universe evolved, as in the theory of …show more content…
McCloskey feels his argument is strong, and he satisfactorily abolishes the possibility of a graceful and perfect God when he refers to evil, and what mankind know about evil. Ironically McCloskey refers to evil as the only answer of theism, but provides zero evidence of theisms disproof. This is also his argument that if a God existed and gave humans free will, thus it would therefore be that god, the God, as the cause of moral evil. Theist would argue as does Evans and Manis that ?evil occurs, such as acts of cowardice and maliciousness, is that human beings make bad use of their freedom, or use of free will. The resulting evil is due to human wickedness, not of God? (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 162). As with most theist beliefs, free will is the most apparent and self-evident of all truths, with the ultimate free will choice be that of salvation, or being departed from God for