On Being an Atheist

Response to "On Being an Atheist"

The story "On Being an Atheist" says that the three proofs that theist use are cosmological, teleological and design argument. These proofs help us distinguish the beliefs that our great God is omnipotence, omniscient, and perfect and are the exact things that McCloskey argues about proofs. McCloskey does not believe these as proofs and say they fail. His objection to the cosmological argument is that we as being as a first cause show insufficient to prove if we are really first. When he argues the teleological and design arguments he does make a very good point when talking about the evidence of purpose or design to there being someone as powerful as to making this all come together. When he states "all we should be entitled to conclude was that there was a powerful, malevolent, or imperfect planner or designer" he makes a strong point that if proven would not back theism up. McCloskey has many objections but he needs to prove the fail of proofs in order to understand the rest. I do feel that he makes good points but I also know there is a God of whom I love and serve and through all the reading and writing one cant say there isn't a God.

When McCloskey starts to say that the arguments themselves do not prove theism we have to understand that it is not one argument that can prove theism, but all the arguments together can work and help prove the case of theism. In retrospect, McCloskey can be right in saying the three arguments are not able to prove theism in them because they must work together. When you do combine them and they work together it is very hard to argue with the theory of theism.

When reading in Evans and Manis book we see them talking contingency, meaning they exist but didn't need to exist. The argument that McCloskey makes is that why do the things exist that don't need to and the answer is a necessary being. This is a being that cannot fail to exist. It is a being that requires no other reason of existence so for it to be there, there is a reason and the reason may not be known but let it be known that it was and is there. There are 3 points he makes in his book and they are "some contingent beings exist" "if any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist" and "therefore, there exists a necessary being" (Evans and Manis 70).

When McCloskey states that it doesn't "postulate an all powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause" this is true however there is no need to say God person, but you are merely stating that it is something God like. His remark does not suggest that there is no good, it more the proof of God that he is objecting with. This makes me seem like he is arguing with himself over what he really knows and what he wants to believe. I would suggest he better understand all the arguments like stated in the book which would then complete the puzzle of understanding the existence of God.

When McCloskey starts talking about where proof should start just to think that this whole universe kind of just happened for no reason is absurd and should not even be having to be talked about. This is not a "very conclusive objection", this universe does not prove that there is a God but it also does not prove that there is no God, which is what he is trying to say. It is reasonable for him to believe such things because we are given the free will to choose and believe in what we want, however based on the design of the universe and the world how one could believe this.

When McCloskey says that there is no proof of design I would argue that and I believe in the book Evans and Manis do give three good points and they are "Nature contains many instances of design" "designed entities are the result of a designer" "Therefore, nature is probably the work of a designer". I believe this is a great point to make, when you take an artist who designs a work of art one would not argue that the work of art did not exist, one might suggest he got his idea from someone else but that fact is that a designer did make the design of which you are standing there and looking at. I believe the same to be true with the universe, when you walk outside you do not question the grass you stand on, or the rock you kink you just do it knowing that someone made this, you may question who made this and where the idea came from, and based on biblical knowledge and the background of accountability for doing things, why wouldn't you believe that our great