Response To Mccloskey
Response to McCloskey’s “On Being and Atheist” I respect individual worldviews, as I desire people to respect mine. At the same time, I do have the freedom of agreeing or disagreeing with ones that are deviate in nature from my own. One prime example is the worldview of H. J. McCloskey. Although I respect his worldview, and understand his reasoning behind it, I also disagree with it as well. McCloskey’s views are one of an Atheist. I am a Christian, and consider myself a theist who believes in an all-powerful God.
The Existence of God
In my opinion, I believe that McCloskey’s arguments against the existence of God is somewhat biased. By biased I’m inferring that his argument is a one-sided view that attempts to provide proof that God doesn’t exist based on man-made judgments about what an all-powerful, omniscient being can, should, or would do. I conclude that this is unreasonable because as mere humans, we don’t have the capability to understand the magnitude or reasoning of God. Who are we to determine what The Creator should do in any circumstance? That is not our position as humans to do this for God. Preoccupied with what an all-powerful …show more content…
being should do, McCloskey has failed to consider the matter of the existence of the universe. He leaves the explanation of the creation of the universe unanswered in his argument against God’s existence. As Foreman states in his presentation, he takes “The best explanation approach for the existence of God.” (Forman, 2014) I agree with Foreman’s stance on the matter. Coupled with the defeasible approach that allows the option of being wrong in a case, the best explanation approach seems to be a more balanced path to God’s existence rather than the one-sided view of McCloskey.
On the Cosmological Argument
The cause of the universe must be necessary because according to Evans and Manis: concludes that “a necessary being one that fails to exist, is the cause of all contingent beings. Their simply is no other explanation. A necessary being is the only kind of being whose existence requires no further explanation. In short, there is an ultimate explanation for the existences of a contingent being only if there exists a necessary being.” (Evan, 2009) Therefore, in light of Manis’ and Evans’ explanation McCloskey’s argument that the existence of the world is no reason for believing in God is incorrect on the basis that God’s existence needs no explanation.
Considering that statement made by Manis and Evans about the cosmological argument, it determined that the argument merely delves into the enormous scope of God’s existence. Therefore, my response to McCloskey would be to dare to learn more about the possibility of God’s existence instead of arguing against his existence. Devote more time to learn about God, Thus, he will perhaps discover more important elements that support God’s existence.
On the Teleological Argument.
The standard of indisputability is reasonable in my opinion. However, there remains the question of what is the measure of indisputability that McCloskey is referring to? Does this mean that no one can argue with the examples that already exist in the world that prove God’s existence? Does it imply that examples should be obvious and evident truths about things that are in existence? To do so would actually hurt his own case. I say this because the examples of what we have in nature by God’s revelation such as trees, air, and life-forms with the ability to reproduce would definitely harm his own case. For these examples are examples of an intelligent being capable of creating complex organisms. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to consider examples of design and
purpose.
Although not necessarily undisputable, I believe that there are strong evidences in the universe that support the existence of a designer of the universe. For example, the cycles of the orbits of the planets in the solar system is so complex that a reasonable person would conclude it had to have a designer. Just like a piece of art or an intricate statue. We all know that they had designers. How much more can we conclude that the vast universe does to? The fact that our planet is in perfect alignment with the sun to support life on earth also supports a designer of the universe. If the earth, moon, or sun was moved out of alignment by a fraction, it would make the difference between life and death on earth. The seasons and endless cycles that are in place, must have surely had a designer. It is very unlikely that circumstances such as these would just fall into place by themselves considering this delicate balance.
I would thoroughly disagree with McCloskey on his view about evolution displacing the need for a designer. In my opinion, evolution’s explanation is only half of the story. If things do evolve due to survival of the fittest, then it was God who set things into motion to operate in this way. Yes, evaluation may be a possibility of the transformation and growth of living things over a period of time. However, if it is so, it is because God designed it this way.
The Existence of Evil. I would respond to McCloskey’s charge that the existence of evil and imperfection in the world is contrary to the perfection of the divine design, by arguing defeasibility. I would admit that I could be wrong about my belief in God. However, I had a strong reason to believe that I am correct in my thinking. Also, I do agree that the cosmological argument has limitations because it allows some people to think well if everything had a beginning then God must have had a beginning also. Yes, my faith has taught me that God’s magnificence is actually too great for human to comprehend or understand. An all knowing omniscient being would surely have more reasoning skills and understand of the universe and perfection than imperfect h humans.
I would tell McCloskey that the existence of evil and suffering does not prove that there is no God. Yes the existence of evil and suffering does make one wonder why God allows it to happen. However, the mere existence of evil is not enough explanation that God does not exist. It is simply just enough argument for the case and an atheist. It just could be that God allows evil for a reason that is unknown or even incomprehensible to humans. That our human understanding is incapable of understanding. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not into thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5, King James Version) The Bible, which is the highly regarded word of God tells us not to lean upon our own understanding. But rather lean unto God with trust and faith. This scripture implies our need for God and our inferior comprehension skills compared to His.
Is Theism Discomforting? I disagree with McCloskey’s claim that atheism is more comforting than theism due to the fact that without God, our lives have no meaning. In God we can take comfort that we have a sole purpose in him to worship him, and use our gifts and talents to bring Him glory. As the example that William Craig used in his article, “Our lives are Hell without God to being us comfort.” (Craig, 2008) Without God we have no hope when the trials of life come upon us. At least we have the hope of the resurrection of Christ to give us life and relieve all of those who suffering from evil.
The Existence of God
In my opinion, I believe that McCloskey’s arguments against the existence of God is somewhat biased. By biased I’m inferring that his argument is a one-sided view that attempts to provide proof that God doesn’t exist based on man-made judgments about what an all-powerful, omniscient being can, should, or would do. I conclude that this is unreasonable because as mere humans, we don’t have the capability to understand the magnitude or reasoning of God. Who are we to determine what The Creator should do in any circumstance? That is not our position as humans to do this for God. Preoccupied with what an all-powerful …show more content…
being should do, McCloskey has failed to consider the matter of the existence of the universe. He leaves the explanation of the creation of the universe unanswered in his argument against God’s existence. As Foreman states in his presentation, he takes “The best explanation approach for the existence of God.” (Forman, 2014) I agree with Foreman’s stance on the matter. Coupled with the defeasible approach that allows the option of being wrong in a case, the best explanation approach seems to be a more balanced path to God’s existence rather than the one-sided view of McCloskey.
On the Cosmological Argument
The cause of the universe must be necessary because according to Evans and Manis: concludes that “a necessary being one that fails to exist, is the cause of all contingent beings. Their simply is no other explanation. A necessary being is the only kind of being whose existence requires no further explanation. In short, there is an ultimate explanation for the existences of a contingent being only if there exists a necessary being.” (Evan, 2009) Therefore, in light of Manis’ and Evans’ explanation McCloskey’s argument that the existence of the world is no reason for believing in God is incorrect on the basis that God’s existence needs no explanation.
Considering that statement made by Manis and Evans about the cosmological argument, it determined that the argument merely delves into the enormous scope of God’s existence. Therefore, my response to McCloskey would be to dare to learn more about the possibility of God’s existence instead of arguing against his existence. Devote more time to learn about God, Thus, he will perhaps discover more important elements that support God’s existence.
On the Teleological Argument.
The standard of indisputability is reasonable in my opinion. However, there remains the question of what is the measure of indisputability that McCloskey is referring to? Does this mean that no one can argue with the examples that already exist in the world that prove God’s existence? Does it imply that examples should be obvious and evident truths about things that are in existence? To do so would actually hurt his own case. I say this because the examples of what we have in nature by God’s revelation such as trees, air, and life-forms with the ability to reproduce would definitely harm his own case. For these examples are examples of an intelligent being capable of creating complex organisms. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to consider examples of design and
purpose.
Although not necessarily undisputable, I believe that there are strong evidences in the universe that support the existence of a designer of the universe. For example, the cycles of the orbits of the planets in the solar system is so complex that a reasonable person would conclude it had to have a designer. Just like a piece of art or an intricate statue. We all know that they had designers. How much more can we conclude that the vast universe does to? The fact that our planet is in perfect alignment with the sun to support life on earth also supports a designer of the universe. If the earth, moon, or sun was moved out of alignment by a fraction, it would make the difference between life and death on earth. The seasons and endless cycles that are in place, must have surely had a designer. It is very unlikely that circumstances such as these would just fall into place by themselves considering this delicate balance.
I would thoroughly disagree with McCloskey on his view about evolution displacing the need for a designer. In my opinion, evolution’s explanation is only half of the story. If things do evolve due to survival of the fittest, then it was God who set things into motion to operate in this way. Yes, evaluation may be a possibility of the transformation and growth of living things over a period of time. However, if it is so, it is because God designed it this way.
The Existence of Evil. I would respond to McCloskey’s charge that the existence of evil and imperfection in the world is contrary to the perfection of the divine design, by arguing defeasibility. I would admit that I could be wrong about my belief in God. However, I had a strong reason to believe that I am correct in my thinking. Also, I do agree that the cosmological argument has limitations because it allows some people to think well if everything had a beginning then God must have had a beginning also. Yes, my faith has taught me that God’s magnificence is actually too great for human to comprehend or understand. An all knowing omniscient being would surely have more reasoning skills and understand of the universe and perfection than imperfect h humans.
I would tell McCloskey that the existence of evil and suffering does not prove that there is no God. Yes the existence of evil and suffering does make one wonder why God allows it to happen. However, the mere existence of evil is not enough explanation that God does not exist. It is simply just enough argument for the case and an atheist. It just could be that God allows evil for a reason that is unknown or even incomprehensible to humans. That our human understanding is incapable of understanding. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not into thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5, King James Version) The Bible, which is the highly regarded word of God tells us not to lean upon our own understanding. But rather lean unto God with trust and faith. This scripture implies our need for God and our inferior comprehension skills compared to His.
Is Theism Discomforting? I disagree with McCloskey’s claim that atheism is more comforting than theism due to the fact that without God, our lives have no meaning. In God we can take comfort that we have a sole purpose in him to worship him, and use our gifts and talents to bring Him glory. As the example that William Craig used in his article, “Our lives are Hell without God to being us comfort.” (Craig, 2008) Without God we have no hope when the trials of life come upon us. At least we have the hope of the resurrection of Christ to give us life and relieve all of those who suffering from evil.