McCloskey claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” He is implicating that we as humans do not have the full understanding or knowledge of everything about creation. Again, based on anyone arguments, he nor I can prove God, no God, or why everything is here. Even he stated in his article that if people accept the examples of purpose and design we would only be entitled to believe that there is a “powerful” “designer.” Everything he claims to be a weak argument for reasons to believe in God can be turned around towards his arguments. As said earlier I cannot prove God but believe there are many good reasons to rather than not to. He wants indisputable examples (which sounds like proof) of God. While he pushes for evolution that supposedly has undisputable proof. There is problem with this, there is no proof of the first organism or a pattern of evolvement. There is no foundation for this belief of a first organism. Only a theory based on similarity amongst organism. There is nothing that shows clearly an evolving species. If we all evolved why isn’t there any in-between species? Just similar between two completely different. His argument is not reasonable.
An example of design that, while not necessarily “indisputable,” I believe …show more content…
What is good? Who decides what is and is not bad or good? This calls attention to the question; where does morality come from? It’s not natural order in humans because that points to a designer. He believes that due to the evil in the world today it cannot lead to an all perfect being but rather an imperfect being. McCloskey has not disproved God but only raised another question. He has chosen to not agree with this possibility of an imperfect world and a perfect