Page 1
H.J. McCloskey claims that “proofs” are not valid and do not provide enough evidence that God exists. In the article, he claims that these “proofs” should be abandoned but he also claims that theist do not come to God or religion solely based on these “proofs”. In the article on page 62, McCloskey quotes a colleague saying, “most theist do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion based on other reasons and factors.” Theists believe in God and His Word over any “theory” that scientist can come up with. The Bible outweighs any other “theory” to theists. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Atheists may make a good argument that God does not exist but there is no documented evidence proving evolution like the documented writings in the Bible telling the story of how God created the heavens and the earth. McCloskey is correct that “proofs” do not prove God’s existence but they do help see the viewpoint of theists. It is ultimately up to each person to believe in what they want to believe in. God gave us free will to be able to choose for ourselves. McCloskey talks about free will negatively and also brings up the point that since evil exists, God cannot. This is not true by any means and we will dispute McCloskey’s points throughout this essay.
McCloskey starts with disputing the Cosmological argument. McCloskey states, "The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being" (McCloskey, 1968). Evans and Manis argue that for everything to exist there had to be a creator that created them. "Ultimately, the explanation of any contingent beings existence will be incomplete unless it culmi...
... middle of paper ...
... we choose to live our lives. I do not think that McCloskey gave a convincing argument that would truly persuade someone to become atheist over theist. All theories of evolution are just that, theories. Even though we have the bible that is documented evidence for theist, there will still be questions and doubt. Without hard proof on either side, it really is up to each individual person on what they choose to believe
Page 5 in. As Christians, it is our duty to spread God’s Word and let people know about Him and his unconditional love. It is up to the people to choose to learn more about God and follow him. People can’t be forced to believe in something, all we, as Christians, can do is live our life righteously and as a witness for God and show people that it is more comforting to believe in God and His love for us than to not have anything to believe in at all.
McCloskey begins by addressing the cosmological argument. He proposes that the existence of the world itself does not give reason to believe in a necessarily existing being. McCloskey believes there is a lack of evidence to show the world had a cause and that God was that cause. However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist. These beings are often contingent on another being. Th...
Within William Rowe’s Chapter two of “The Cosmological Argument”, Rowe reconstructs Samuel Clark's Cosmological Argument by making explicit the way in which the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or PSR, operates in the argument as well as providing contradictions of two important criticisms from Rowe’s argument.
First off, The Cosmological Argument was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1274 through his work entitled Summa Theologica (otherwise known as Five Ways). Its purpose was to prove God’s existence through sensory perception. In Part One, Article Three of Prima Pars, Aquinas states that in order to debate, one must become involved in the opposing argument, then afterwards argue their view. In this case, one must look at both the argument for God’s existence (Theism) and for God’s non-existence (Atheism) in order to truly understand the argument that they are arguing for or against. The cosmological argument is divided into three parts, each containing varying sub-arguments:
Typically, cosmological arguments occur in two different phases. The first phase’s purpose is to provide the premise that there is a ‘first cause’ or an independent being that caused the creation of our universe, while the second phase’s purpose is to argue that this being has godlike features like omnipotence and immanence. To justify the claims in these phases, the Cosmological Argument takes into consideration the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which is the principle that there is an explanation for the existence of every single thing (referred to as PSRa), and for every positive fact (referred to as PSRb). This principle is a key element of the cosmological argument as it provides rationale to the premises of the argument with what appears to be obvious facts.
McCloskey dives right into the meat of his article by addressing what he refers to as “proofs” he claims were put forth by theists. I think that it is imperative to know the difference between a “proof” and an argument. A proof contains a note of certainty. It suggests that something can be known to be 100% truth. In one of the recent PointCast presentations, Dr. Foreman insists that we cannot know any with a complete certainty that we have absolute truth about the existence of God. Therefore these ideas should be put forth as arguments and not as proofs. In fact, if looking at it the other way, he cannot know for certain that his ideas are correct. If he uses his rebuttals to the theist’s arguments, they seem contradictory several times. As we have no absolute certainty for either side, we are left then to find the best possible explanation. This is widely used in cases where things simply cannot be known for certain such as the example of the black hole that Dr. Foreman used. Science can’t fully expl...
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
The cosmological argument is the existence of God, arguing that the possibility of each existing and the domain collected of such elements in this universe. The inquiry is that 'for what reason does anything exist? Why as opposed to nothing? In this paper, I will explain for what reason does everything need cause? Why is God thought to be the principal cause?
1. Craig’s “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is based on three main premises. The first premise being that everything which begins to exist requires a cause. The second premise is the universe began to exist. The last premise is that the universe requires a cause. In order to infer from this that the universe has a cause of its existence, the advocate of the Kalam cosmological argument needs to show that the past is finite, that the universe began to live at a definite time. Scientists gathered verification that the universe started with the big bang, which means it must have a root, specifically God. The essence of Craig’s claim is his contention that the reality of an actual infinite, encompassing the development of a definite infinite by sequential
2. Kalam cosmological argument, he asked a question that the universe begins to exist? He explained that "whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist therefore the
In the article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey seeks to disprove theistic beliefs by debating arguments for God. However, before even beginning to examine the arguments, McCloskey is on the defense; defining theism as uncomfortable and assuming that theists should be miserable in their beliefs. After making these statements, McCloskey begins his debate by calling the theistic arguments “proofs”; specifically, McCloskey aims to argue against the proofs of cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, and the argument from design. But, through McCloskey’s repeated use of the term “proof”, he unknowingly provides a theist with their first rebuttal: that a theist would not use the term “proof”, as these arguments are not proof, but rather
These arguments, try to use the existence of God through the existence of the cosmos or universe. This is often mentioned to as the “first-cause argument” because theists believe that God is the first cause of the existence of the universe. McCloskey finds the cosmological argument implausible, he voices his opinion claiming that “the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being . Everything in the universe exists because something caused it to exist. Evans and Manis address this by introducing the non-temporal form to this cosmological argument, this form features parts of the cosmological argument to form reasons for why the universe exists. He also claims that this argument “do not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful uncaused caused”, In my opinion McCloskey should consider the effects of the claim that no necessary being exists as an uncaused cause. Though the cosmological argument does not prove God’s existence it does verify to a necessary being as the only cause that eliminates the need for limitless revert
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
whereas a thing that is contingent may go out of existence. The method Aquinas uses is to set up the opposite position, then prove. it to be wrong. Therefore, the cosmological argument begins by accepting the premise that all things are contingent. If all things are contingent, i.e., if all things can go out of existence and do not.
Existence of the universe cannot be found in a series of contingent things, otherwise it would go on ad infinitum. Sufficient reason cannot be in contingent things because contingent things do not provide an explanation for themselves; matter is unaffected by the ways in which it moves. If matter is moved, it cannot be said that it has the inertia to change its sate of motion. Therefore, it is not possible to find in matter a reason for motion because contingent things are indifferent to motion. An atheist opponent could attack the argument here by denying the principle of sufficient reason, although the confidence of many in scientific explanations might not sit comfortably with a denial that there are necessarily explanations to be
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience. The mere claim, that there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery?