Philosophy 201 Theism
Philosophy 201
Response Paper to McCloskey Article Atheism vs. Theism
In McCloskey’s article his argument starts with the “proofs” that are nonexistent and we should simply abandon our theistic ways and what we consider our “proofs” to be that God does exist. According to McCloskey our world does not reveal the work of an all knowing all perfect being. I don’t know how one who is a Christian cannot get a little worked up when reading this article. That being said, I felt that when I watched the presentation it made way more sense to me than the article did. When McCloskey says that there cannot be evil and good, I disagree very much. How do we know for sure what is moral and what is evil and how do we describe this? As put in the presentation “you know it when you see it”. God is the standard of good. We are given the choice of free will, like Adam we are to be “god like” we have the value and are in god’s likeness but we can misuse our human freedom. Free will teaches us how to learn to react to things in our natural environment and that helps us evolve spiritually.
According the McCloskey existence of the world is not enough to claim the existence of god. What I take from the reading in ‘Evans and Manis’ is that god is the reason there is a universe. There is no law as to why these objects in our universe exist, so of course we would wonder why they exist, a being has to exist to cause the existence of these things. That being said, this does not prove that the creator of these objects is omnipotent.
As I mentioned in the paragraph above, the existence of the world does prove that a being had to create the objects in our universe. I suppose in the reading McCloskey is right in that the mere proof of objects existence does not give us the right to claim an all-powerful, all perfect being created these objects. What I do believe is given this knowledge why would one not want to further educate yourself on this conclusion and open your eyes to the idea of “god”
Response Paper to McCloskey Article Atheism vs. Theism
In McCloskey’s article his argument starts with the “proofs” that are nonexistent and we should simply abandon our theistic ways and what we consider our “proofs” to be that God does exist. According to McCloskey our world does not reveal the work of an all knowing all perfect being. I don’t know how one who is a Christian cannot get a little worked up when reading this article. That being said, I felt that when I watched the presentation it made way more sense to me than the article did. When McCloskey says that there cannot be evil and good, I disagree very much. How do we know for sure what is moral and what is evil and how do we describe this? As put in the presentation “you know it when you see it”. God is the standard of good. We are given the choice of free will, like Adam we are to be “god like” we have the value and are in god’s likeness but we can misuse our human freedom. Free will teaches us how to learn to react to things in our natural environment and that helps us evolve spiritually.
According the McCloskey existence of the world is not enough to claim the existence of god. What I take from the reading in ‘Evans and Manis’ is that god is the reason there is a universe. There is no law as to why these objects in our universe exist, so of course we would wonder why they exist, a being has to exist to cause the existence of these things. That being said, this does not prove that the creator of these objects is omnipotent.
As I mentioned in the paragraph above, the existence of the world does prove that a being had to create the objects in our universe. I suppose in the reading McCloskey is right in that the mere proof of objects existence does not give us the right to claim an all-powerful, all perfect being created these objects. What I do believe is given this knowledge why would one not want to further educate yourself on this conclusion and open your eyes to the idea of “god”