Cosmological Argumentative Analysis
There has been a debate on God’s existence has remained a very heated argument that has been carried down through generations. Several arguments have been brought forward by those who are against the claim that God exists as well as by those who are for the argument. These arguments can be of cosmological or teleological nature. Cosmological arguments are based on philosophical laws as they try to argue for or against the origin of man and how they help describe the origin of God’s existence. Teleological arguments on the other hand are also based on philosophy but instead they argue by explaining phenomena by their ends or purpose. McCloskey in his article “On Being an Atheist” highlights the importance of having proof beyond any reasonable
…show more content…
As such, they propose that by the mere fact that the present reveals the existence of contingent beings, it does not really matter why they exist. The only important being is that one being that created the rest of the contingent beings, and according to them that being is God. (Evans & Manis) On the other hand, McCloskey’s views that cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-perfect, all-powerful being” is, according to me, incorrect because the cosmological theory is merely the beginning of what could easily be a very long study about the origin of God. Evans & Manis do not claim that their theory is all knowing. They argue that since we have more proof that God exists, and little proof to counter this claim, looking for definitive proof as demanded by McCloskey is pointless. (Evans, & Manis, …show more content…
Therefore, they argue that nature is the work of God” (McCloskey, H. J. (1968). In as much as they do not have enough evidence to back their opinion that God is the architect of nature, it is very evident that nature’s design was created by someone. This is the strongest and undisputable fact that McCloskey should use to justify his case that seeks undisputable proof. I also believe this argument to be proof that there exists a being that is above human beings who is responsible for the existence of the various natural phenomena such as the existence of diseases, water, land, planets
As such, they propose that by the mere fact that the present reveals the existence of contingent beings, it does not really matter why they exist. The only important being is that one being that created the rest of the contingent beings, and according to them that being is God. (Evans & Manis) On the other hand, McCloskey’s views that cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-perfect, all-powerful being” is, according to me, incorrect because the cosmological theory is merely the beginning of what could easily be a very long study about the origin of God. Evans & Manis do not claim that their theory is all knowing. They argue that since we have more proof that God exists, and little proof to counter this claim, looking for definitive proof as demanded by McCloskey is pointless. (Evans, & Manis, …show more content…
Therefore, they argue that nature is the work of God” (McCloskey, H. J. (1968). In as much as they do not have enough evidence to back their opinion that God is the architect of nature, it is very evident that nature’s design was created by someone. This is the strongest and undisputable fact that McCloskey should use to justify his case that seeks undisputable proof. I also believe this argument to be proof that there exists a being that is above human beings who is responsible for the existence of the various natural phenomena such as the existence of diseases, water, land, planets