Response To H. J. Mccloskey's On Being An Atheist

1987 Words8 Pages
RESPONSE TO H. J. McCLOSKEY’S ARTICLE PHIL 201-B16 Ronald D. Kuykendall Liberty University Online, March 11, 2011 Does God exist? This is a question which has been debated for ages. Each side has it’s philosopher who present their reasoning for or against the existence of God. In his article “On Being an Atheist”, H.J. McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God. Several different approaches are used to provide a very strong argument for the…show more content…
Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe. This is consistent with some views of God, however, it is far from an all-encompassing explanation. The argument is not considered to be the end-all-be-all defense for the existence of God. However, it is a good
Open Document