On Being an Atheist Essay

In this article McCloskey writes what he conceives as rectitude in the innovation we see in. He states that theists call back in a graven image and that they select proofs that this immortal exists. In the article he addresses these proofs and in a very academic and respectful delegacy separate them down. He attempts to eliminate only possibilities of the existence of perfection, done what he calls priming coats wherefore I reckon that atheism is a much more homely article of belief than theism, and why theist should be miserable just because they be theists.The first issue that McCloskey references to is the proofs that Christians hold to sanction that divinity fudge exist, but as we learned in one of our PointeCast presentations, the reasons Christians believe in theology be non exactly proofs, because they burn down non scientifically or in any way probe to a point that beau ideal does in incident exist. These reasons are arguments, theories and caref ully persuasion out propositions that try their unattackableest to justify what we believe in. Because of this McCloskey argues that universe should give up on the notion that beau ideal exists, to date since on that point also no way to prove that God does not exist, McCloskey is disappointed by his own logic. So if humans are to give up on both the notion that on that point is or is not a God, and then that leaves us with nothing whatsoever to believe in. on that point is no way to prove that God does or does not exist, what I energy believe to be a strong argument for the existence of God, and disbeliever such as McCloskey might deem nonsense. These proofs are apparently and design argument for the existence of God, thus prevail to be involven as valid argument, propositions, and theory and not as tangible proof.McCloskey dissects three study arguments creation the cosmological proof, the theological proof, and the argument from design. He takes all these a rguments and picks them away for both atheist and theist to see what he is trying to prove. In all honesty in around cuticles in these arguments of his I sewer see what he is trying to prove, yet in the closing I have no sense of what he has accomplished with his arguments if he himself cannot prove that God does not exist.The first argument that McCloskey addresses is the Cosmological proof. He states that we cannot maybe assume without proof on an an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause and to this notion I somewhat agree. The reason being is that this argument does not specify the qualities of a god that could create the universe as it is. olibanum the argument simply states that at that place must have been a first cause or in that location would have been infinite regress, or in other talking to gods and that is what the argument is trying to avoid.The next argument that McCloskey addresses is the Theological proof. He states that there cannot be indisputable pro ofs and examples of design that the whole argument becomes invalid. In this case he is again defeated by his own logic because one date again there is no way that any arguments attempting to prove that God does not exist are indisputable as well. In the creation we decease we must believe in what we as individuals take to as truth, since there is no possible way that a soul can prove or disprove that God does or does not exist. McCloskey is attempting to fight his arguments so hard that in the essence of itself he is defeating himself without realizing it.I believe that a perfect example of intelligent design is the human personate. There is no possible way that such a complex and dread(a) creation came from a bunch of cells meshing together. Our bodies are built to fail on the earth in a way that is amazingly thought out. The body is functioning, living organism in and of itself with thousands of different parts and pieces all working together to accomplish one goal to liv e. The human body is the perfect example to show that intelligent design was indeed include in the universe and in the world today. Though this does not prove that there is one God, it does prove that there is a higher being that created what we are today.I do not object to the thought of microevolution or even evolution itself, but I do not believe that evolution exterminates the need for intelligent design and a creator. Evolutionists believe that there exist the perfect condition as to what created the cosmos and the world almost us, yet all the experiments to prove that this event took emerge have failed. once more there is the fact that we cannot prove or disprove this belief, while the experiments have failed there is no way to go back in time and to prove that it indeed does not exist. Yet people must take into account that evolution does not cancel out God, in fact why couldnt it have been God himself that created the perfect condition that brought into place evolution .McCloskey also addresses the fact that there is imperfection and wrong in the world, he states that there could not possibly be a God who would abide this. First of all, the cosmological proof in itself does not tell us the characteristic of the creator, simply that there is one. Secondly a person who believes in God would tell you that there is barbarous in the world because God gave his creation the right to make. The choice of the first man and woman of the world which God created chose to sin and brought evil into the world. There is also the fact that I believe McCloskey is being quite bold by stating that there is no divine purpose. After all he is simply a person in the world he himself is not the creator and definitely does not have all the knowledge of the universe.The fact that McCloskey brings up the presence of evil is quite under ariseable. I completely understand where he is coming from and have had experiences in my own life with people like this. This is actuall y a very common argument among atheist and McCloskey is not an exception. It is some quantify hard to accept that fact that evil sometime does in fact steady down into Gods Will, even some theist have raise up with the problem of evil when they themselves believe in a good God. In this argument I honestly have trouble as well. It is hard to justify a good persons murder, or the rape of a young child, or the death of thousands because of a inbred disaster. Yet in the depths of my heart I personally believe that when God created the world it was not as such, it was perfect. When sin entered into the world it brought the evil as well.As for why God allows such evil to take place, that is a harder question and an even more difficult answer. I was brought up to believe that when God sees his creation in pain, it hurts him too there have been times when I have questioned why God allows certain evils in our lives. The truth is there is no arguments that can make a person shade bett er in the face of child abuse, rape, murder, suicide, and even natural disasters, yet in the moments when people are hurting the most is when they turn to God. Thus I believe that is the way in which we see the reason there is evil in the world. God did not create the world with evil in place, but he did create a creation that could choose for their selves. Thus in essence the human race suffers from our own choices. McCloskey makes some very valid arguments yet I knock that most of them stand empty handed.McCloskey also questions why God would not create a human race with free go forth to always to choose what is right. To this direction I honestly believe that would not be freewill. The reason that God created man with free will was so that he could adore God of his own free will. If God had created man to the point where he could only choose what was good and right then in essence it would not have been free will at all. The beauty of having free will is the fact that God let s you choose, though he knows the choices that you will make, the choices are yours. Whether to love God or to reject God, free will cannot be controlled for then it would not be free will at all.At the end of his article McCloskey states that atheism is a much more comforting belief than theism. He uses the example of an ill child that was dying and that he would find no comfort in knowing there was a God. I on the other hand find that if there was no God and man was here on earth simply to be and that there was no reason for living that the death of a child would be unimportant. This might sounds very cruel but it is the truth. If there is no reason to live then dying is not much of an issue, since there is no later onlife simply the life we have here on earth. I find the fact of not knowing what will happen after death disconcerting.To know that when I die I will be in heaven with God is more than enough to help me through this life on earth. Atheism to me is a sad religion with no reason for the existence of man. Heaven holds so much for the believer, peace, no pain, and an fadeless home with God. Atheism to me is the religion that is the most miserable to live with, not theism. The greatest reason being that if there is no God, no afterlife, no salvation then when death is on your doorsteps there is no trust only despair and fear of the nothingness beyond the grave. I cannot live believing there is no reason to live here on earth, knowing God loves and has a place for me in heaven is what helps me live on this Earth.ReferencesCraig, William L. Reasonable faith Christian truth and apologetics. 3rd Ed. Wheaton, IL Crossway Books, 2008. 71-90. Evans, C. S., Manis, R. Z. Philosophy of religion Thinking about faith. 2nd Ed. Downers Grove, IL InterVarsity Press, 2009. McCloskey, H. J. Question 1 On being an atheist. 1968. 51-54.