Response to McCloskey's Article - Essay Example

? McCloskey is both critical of the conventional arguments for God’s existence and offers the crisis of evil as a cause why one should not believe in God. The issue of the existence of God has been subject to major arguments through time between people who believe God exists and those who dispute that fact. In this regard, there have been several points of view about God’s existence that include both cosmological and teleological ones. Concerning these arguments, H.J McCloskey wrote an article in which he portrays these arguments as false because of lack of substantive proof. He goes ahead to suggest that due to lack of proof the notion of Gods existence should be dismissed altogether. Moreover, looking keenly at the arguments he puts across it lacks substance, one of those is existence of evil, which he says it is a proof God does not exist. This kind of argument lacks merit because one can say that if presence of evil things is a proof of Gods non-existence, what about the existence of the good and what it proofs. The article has not answered this query. McCloskey believes that the cosmological argument was an argument from the existence of the world. McCloskey also states that believing in an uncaused first origin of the universe is issues because nothing about our universe leads us to that believe. However, many of us may disagree with this because we believe that God is the fundamental factor of the origin of the universe. Furthermore, scholars and philosophers term that the universe is contingent; therefore, the universe requires a necessary being to acts as an ultimate cause. Finally, this necessary being is God.His article represents his own thinking and that of atheism but does not proof anything. In his article, he puts emphasis on the point that evident proofs of nature cannot adequately elucidate the existence of God. With respect to the PointeCast presentation, most theists have a strong believe among themselves that God exists and they do not look for facts to prove their case to disapprove atheist claims. Therefore, it can be said that atheist have come up with non-convincing evidence to counter the theist believes. Evans in his arguments strongly supports religious beliefs. He tends to differ with H.J McCloskey and his arguments and he seems to believe that the world was created. He seems to be comfortable with naturalistic ideas. McCloskey points out these objections against the cosmological argument stating that the fact that the world is real is enough evidence not to believe in such a higher being as God, but Evans and Manis puts forward the following argument in response. They say that for a contingent being to exist then there must be a necessary being that causes the contingent being to exist contingent beings exist, therefore if we are the contingent beings then God must be the Necessary being. The only fault in this response is that they do not have evidence to proof their argument (Evans and Manis, 2009).. They response to the issues raised by Mccloskey to their arguments by pointing out that atheist assertion that the universe has always survived. Manis and Evans counter by stating their approach is enough for such a challenge since they do not make any suggestion as to the age of the universe. The other issue raised by Mccloskey is that if everything has a cause, then God must have a cause as well but Manis and Evans counters this by saying that God is not a contingent being, therefore His origin cannot be known and it is unnecessary to know and that is why He is God. The main challenge to this is naturalism, this is because naturalists hold a notion that things exists at natures will and have no cause but on the same breath they cannot explain why beings exist. McCloskey points out that cosmological argument by saying that he does not sanction us to assume an all-mighty, all-perfect, all-powerful uncaused being which causes other beings. Evans and Manis accepts that this is debatable, They further note that even if the argument is held as credible, it is much far to the starting point of studying God. The cosmological argument allows us to go further in studying the origin of God and God Himself. This arguments proves that there is no evidence to prove or disapprove the existence of God, therefore attempts by Mccloskey to argue that God does not exists is inconclusive and misguided (McCloskey,1968). With respect to teleological argument, McCloskey suggests that to get the proof undeniable examples of intend and purpose are required, this however can be said to be unreasonable because no one can be able to define God and his existence let alone getting undisputable evidence about God. Evans and Manis points out that nature contain many instances of a plan. Therefore, nature might actually be a work of a designer. This is supported by the observable organized and complicated characteristic of nature (Evans and Manis, 2009). While Mccloskey supports the evolution idea as opposed to existence of God, Evans and Manis argue that, the evolution theory might be valid, however the evolution theory does not rule out Gods hand in guiding it. Many may argue that evolution is controlled by the rules of nature but then one cannot shy away of asking a question, then who controls nature? This part leads to God. When McCloskey mentions the issue of evil in the world, he says that evil is an imperfection and he pits it against the good. However, there are limitations on both teleological and cosmological arguments. Good or evil cannot be explained definitely, because the world has many traditions and religions and they are all entitled to their definitions and opinions. McCloskey argues that a being that was perfect should have made a world free of evil and imperfections, atheists can point out the fact nothing should be out of Gods capability. be out of God’s reach if He exists to the point a compromise is necessary. But on the other hand it can be said that evils are necessary for goodness to exist because how would we no what goodness is without any evil happening this is a valid reflections one must think about and perhaps this is where morality comes in. Trying to unravel the mystery of whether God exists or not or the origin of God seems to be out of human reach, but this does not mean if we cannot proof that God exist then this forms the basis of saying God does not exist. The issue of evil brings about argument against freedom of choice by men in presence of God as McCloskey puts it but Evans and Manis propose If God created a free world then God had to give them the right to choice. Otherwise, it would not be a free world as we see it today since God cannot live with evil and hence beings would be prohibited to do certain things. Some atheists may claim that some evil is pointless and if God exist, He would not entertain such evil therefore God does not exist but its good to remember pointless or no pointless evil is an opinion of an individual but not God. The belief that God exists or not depends on an individual’s faith and this faith is enhanced by search for knowledge about your faith and this is where Holy books such as the Bible may help one to know God a little better and understand the creation of the universe. McCloskey concludes that atheism is more comfortable than Christianity since life tends to end at the grave and nobody knows otherwise. It is his own conclusions since no one know whether if Christians die there is an afterlife with God. If life ends at the grave then it does not really matter how you live your life. Craig argues morality exists due to presence of God this argument is a valid one since morality in many cultures is based on religion and God. A good example is Christianity where the bible clearly indicates the Ten Commandments that God requires Christians to follow during their lifetime. Without these commandments, probably Christians would not be in a position to tell good or bad (Craig, 2005). Craig also raises another crucial point about the purpose of human life. He specifically says that if God does not exist, then human life would not be any different from the life of other animals. According to the bible, God created man in his own image to glorify Him human race is the apex of His creation. Humans cannot live without a purpose, something valuable, or a meaning to their life. This purpose is why God created human race and therefore Morality cannot exist without the presence of the creator of the rules of morality and that is God (Craig, 2005). McCloskey’s arguments are excuses by atheist not to believe in god. This is because the concern he raises in his article are concerns shared by all including believers. We all wonder who is God and his existence why some things happen in this world like death and other things beyond human comprehension. However, it is valid to say that the presence of evil cannot be used to dispute the presence of God (McCloskey, 1986). Both cosmological and teleological arguments present their own perception but there is a room for further discussions and deliberations about this issue. McCloskey may have sought to prove God does not exist but his arguments are weak, but the fact remains existence of God has not been proven or disapproved by man. We can only argue to the best of our comprehension Reference Evans and Manis.(2009) Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith .Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. H. J. McCloskey. (1986) .On Being an Atheist. London: London Press William Lane Craig. (2005). The Absurdity of Life without God. Chicago. Biola University Christian Apologetics Program Read More