Philosophy 201 Response Paper
Essay Preview: Philosophy 201 Response Paper
Report this essay
Paul LewisPHIL 201-B27Professor Meeks28 June 2016Philosophy 201 Response PaperIn 1968 the month of February, H.J McCloskey wrote an article “On Being an Atheist, “in the journal question one. In the article McCloskey give his reasons on the argument of God’s existences. The purpose of this paper is to responds to McCloskey arguments from the delivery of an Atheistic worldview and gives my feedback from my worldview as theism.McCloskey tries to explain that atheism is farther on the logical side and more fit and contented than theism. McCloskey applies the word “proof” instead of “theory” to give his argument deceptive control about the existences of God. A lot of his thought can be consider as the truth, however can’t be proven. You will never get to prove something one hundred percent even in regards to God’s existence. According to McCloskey “most theists do not come to believe in God as a source for religious believes, but as a result of other reasons and factors,” (McCloskey, 62). McCloskey sees that his argument a long cannot make a defense for the existence of God so he tries to use a different approach. The three proofs cosmological argument, theological argument, and the argument from design. McCloskey Cumulative case that he presents takes the Cosmological, Theological, and Moral Arguments all in one. I feel that God exists, and we are probably accountable to this God. The universe may have meaning and purpose. Plus, our own existence may not cease at physical death.Looking at the first argument the first argument for God’s existence is that of the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument is the existence of the universe and cosmos is the direct suggestion of the existence of God. McCloskey protest that people are not justified in believing that there a reason for the universe. McCloskey believes this cleanly because needing a cause for the universe would also call for a basis for God. McCloskey move on to say that even if the cosmological argument allows us to assume the existence of God that there is no reason to assume that God must be omnipotent, omniscient and no less. In the world creatures do not know of their existence or how they came to be. There is a reason and a cause for everything, which lead to the universe being subject on a cause. According to McCloskey the cosmological argument, “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause, “(McCloskey, 51). McCloskey says because the earth exists you not have to believe in an uncaused cause. He says that the only assumption we can come up with about the earth’s existence is it came from some kind of power to the universe. McCloskey claims that, “All we can infer from the casual argument is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe,” (McCloskey, 63). There no logic to his conclusion it doesn’t make sense to me. He also lacks to explain about the power existence he says that cause the earth to exist. McCloskey concludes by saying that if a creator exist must be “a malevolent powerful being or a well-intentioned muddler” based on the world’s imperfections and existence of evil (McCloskey, 63).
The Theological Argument just like the Cosmological Argument is the next argument McCloskey takes. This is an argument from design and implements a source of intelligence in which the universe came to exist. They both start at the cosmos, however the Theological Argument discussed as an organized entity with a purpose, that believers deem as evidence of intelligent design. McCloskey says there a clear contrast between Argument from Design and the Theological Argument, but he does not give a clue to what the distinct difference could be McCloskey explains that in proving God’s existence this argument is insufficient. McCloskey claims that, “…all we should be entitled to conclude was that there was a powerful, malevolent, or imperfect planner or designer.” (McCloskey, 52) So what McCloskey is saying is indicating to the fact that nature is, in fact, broken, yet if it is considered it to be accurate. McCloskey makes an additional claim to the Theological Argument. He says, “To get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” (McCloskey, 52) This is a false idea; however, the standards set the defender of the argument to which he cannot live up to himself. McCloskey suggests that since evolution does exist that it displaces the need for a designer. God, however, designed the world to continue evolving without the need of a redesign. According to Evans and Manis, “the evolutionary process, even if it is a mechanical process, is simply the means whereby God, the intelligent designer, realizes his purposes,” (83).In his article McCloskey talk a lot about on the problem with evil. McCloskey says what he thinks theist solutions are to answer the problem of evil. These solutions include the fact that the pain is unreal, God’s punishment for sinning, what makes the world better, and is God’s way of reminding men of his existence while also warning them to repair their ways. He argues that atheists are not affected by evil like theists are which is why life is more comfortable for atheists. Evil does exist in the world, but evil also makes the world a better place. McCloskey claims that the presence of evil in the world argues against “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.” (McCloskey, 52)