On Being an Atheist
The purpose of the paper is to answer several questions arising from an article by H. J. McCloskey entitled “On Being an Atheist”.
McCloskey makes the claim that he is reminding fellow atheist why they believe there is no God. He claims that the traditional proofs have no merit. I believe the sheer magnitude and complexity of the world we live in is strong evidence of an intelligent designer and creator. Only an intelligent creator could form a world where the air that we breathe is part of such a complex system. We also live in a world that has morals, which points to a morally perfect Being that we model our lives and society by. The Cosmological, Teleological and Moral arguments create a cumulative case for why God exist. God’s existence is not solely dependent on any one argument, rather an accumulation of several arguments. Although McCloskey tries to argue the Cosmological, Teleological and Moral arguments from the same point, they are intended to build upon each other.
Does the universe exist? If the universe exists, what caused it to exist? The universe itself could not have created or caused itself. If the cause or explanation for the universe is something other than itself, what is that cause. If the universe is a contingent being, did other contingent beings cause it or did a non-contingent being cause the universe? Something caused the universe to exist. There was a First Cause. This First Cause has no beginning and no end, it is eternal. What could possibly be powerful enough to create the universe with all of its complexity and depth if not God? To say that contingent things just exist with no cause does not explain why they exist. Can a contingent being give an explanation for how or why it exists? If not, it follows that the only explanation is a non-contingent being began the process. The Cosmological Argument is not meant to give exhaustive proof for the existence of God. It is just a piece of the pie that encourages a
McCloskey makes the claim that he is reminding fellow atheist why they believe there is no God. He claims that the traditional proofs have no merit. I believe the sheer magnitude and complexity of the world we live in is strong evidence of an intelligent designer and creator. Only an intelligent creator could form a world where the air that we breathe is part of such a complex system. We also live in a world that has morals, which points to a morally perfect Being that we model our lives and society by. The Cosmological, Teleological and Moral arguments create a cumulative case for why God exist. God’s existence is not solely dependent on any one argument, rather an accumulation of several arguments. Although McCloskey tries to argue the Cosmological, Teleological and Moral arguments from the same point, they are intended to build upon each other.
Does the universe exist? If the universe exists, what caused it to exist? The universe itself could not have created or caused itself. If the cause or explanation for the universe is something other than itself, what is that cause. If the universe is a contingent being, did other contingent beings cause it or did a non-contingent being cause the universe? Something caused the universe to exist. There was a First Cause. This First Cause has no beginning and no end, it is eternal. What could possibly be powerful enough to create the universe with all of its complexity and depth if not God? To say that contingent things just exist with no cause does not explain why they exist. Can a contingent being give an explanation for how or why it exists? If not, it follows that the only explanation is a non-contingent being began the process. The Cosmological Argument is not meant to give exhaustive proof for the existence of God. It is just a piece of the pie that encourages a