Response to McCloskey's Article On Being an Atheist Essay

Response to McCloskeys Article On Being an Atheist - try out ExampleIn this paper, a response is given to McCloskey by basin g the arguments to what has been covered in the philosophy of religion unit. McCloskey, in his article On being an Atheist presents a very strong counter argument against theist arguments about existence of a unequivocal perfect being referred to as God. According to him, theists hold on to arguments about existence of God as the fundamental proofs of his existence. The arguments do not certainly infer to proof of Gods existence nor do they provide a proof of why we exist. He actually claims that theists are sucked into the realms of religion not because of the basic proofs that exist but due to mere arguments. According to McCloskeys line of argument, it is possible to argue that God certainly does not exist. The world is so imperfect to be the engineering thrash of a perfect being. In fact, we can only conclude that God, if he ever exists, is an evil God since in that respect is more pain and suffering in the world than joy and happiness. Where is God when all the evil happens? Where was he not to control Hitler? Arguably, God may not exist if we take this line of thought. I fuck off always observed the unjustified pain and suffering that happen to the per se wrong people. Young babies who are flawless in the eyes of exacting Being God should certainly not suffer at least because they are innocent. Why cant God bring us adpressed to him by good deeds and not through pain and suffering as claimed by theists? Things would seem more rational. On the other hand, existence would leave to make any meaning if God did not exist. What if God made the universe the way it is with an ultimate purpose? To me it seems more logical than to claim his nonexistence McCloskey presents a very strong heretofore questionable argument about cosmology. According to him, it is possible to have a cause without cause. He infers that it is possible to ha ve the world, as we know it without a causative agent. The mere existence of the universe is not a justified reason enough to posit that there exists a cause behind creation. I quite agree with his argument since the existence of the universe is not a foolproof evidence of existence of a supreme being. However, I tend to agree more with the theists, not because there is foolproof evidence but because both atheists like McCloskey and the scientific giants have not yet provided exact proof of cause. I would rather live believing that there was God and die to find there was none, than to live as if he neer existed and died to find that he actually existed. According to Evans line of thought about cause for cause, existence of the universe would be both irrational and absurd if there were no cause for the entire perfectly tuned universe as it represents itself to humankind. Craig also shares the same arguments on his article The Absurdity of Life without God (Craig, 2008). All unearth ly beliefs nonplus an appreciable form of connection with a supreme being. Surprisingly, virtually all religious ideologies about supremacy of the creator share the same basics. Christians experience faith, miracles, healing, pain, and suffering among other connective experiences with God. McCloskey may have a point in his argument but his argument is somewhat one sided. I aptitude ask McCloskey one simple yet fundamental question what determines the discourse on the universe? Is it a collective contribution of every human