Mccloskey's Argument For The Existence Of God

After reviewing McCloskey's article it is clear to say that he wanted to truly appeal to an atheist audience. McCloskey refers to the arguments as "proofs", which means that he is trying to insinuate that these arguments are not scientifically proven and are not based on facts. A proof is a statement that is unquestionable and lead to an end. He also implies that the arguments cannot definitely establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned because this way he can use that term to make the argument that God exists less plausible. Specifically, the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and arguments of design in general cannot be proven and cannot point to an end, but they do provide possible arguments that God does
The cosmological argument argues the existence of God since there had to be a creator of all things in nature that depend on something else for their existence. McCloskey’s idea is that the existence of the universe is not enough to confirm the existence of God. An argument that can be used against this statement is the non-temporal form of the cosmological argument. In the book “Philosophy of Religion” by Evans and Manis, the non-temporal form has three components. First there is some contingent beings exist (Evans and Manis, 69). The second component is that if any contingent being exist then a significant being must exist (69). Third, there must be the existence of a significant being (69). Furthermore, the cause of the universe is necessary because is important because without that development then there would be not existence of the contingent beings. Another claim by McCloskey is that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause”; this statement is not necessarily true. Since the world around McCloskey does exist there must be an ultimate creator who created the universe and this creator is