Response Paper On Being An Atheist Philosophy Essay

Response Paper On Being An Atheist Philosophy shewIn the H.J. McCloskey article entitled, On Being an Atheist he begins with assertions that argon absent of logic, vernacular sense, and reasoning. He reaches all these conclusions without even a respectful cursory reading of matinee idols word, lots less study. I will take on to show where his financial state manpowerts do non, conclusively prove that atheism is true, or that graven image does not exist.1I find it inte laying that he does not get over ontological arguments (the idea of divinity fudge proves, or adds evidence to, the fact that He exists and, in fact, dismisses them. in that locationfore, I want to point out that ontological arguments do not prove atheism, because simply declaring your ego an atheist does not qualify you as an atheist. With all due respect, Mr. McCloskey argues in favor of atheism and attempts to discredit theism, by using multiple approaches one macrocosm that paragon failed to build His birth conception, and he claims in his cosmological argument, that the existence of all that we experience and guarantee while on earth, does not prove divinity fudge exists or that He is even necessary.2Proofs mucklet definitively establish the case for deityFirst, McCloskey implies proofs tummyt definitively establish the case for God, so they should be abandoned. McCloskey makes no effort to define injustice, nor does he attempt to explain it. He tries to discredit anyones belief in God, by attacking the origin of their belief, but he never addresses why a persons faith ignorenot be reasoned whether they examine all the evidence precedent to accepting Christian theism are not To attend McCloskeys argument, you have to understand relativism, which is a position where all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual, but relativism does not prove at that place is no God. Philosophy sometimes clouds issues to the point, that no social occa sion can be know for sure. For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in Jesus oral communication in John 146, I am the way, the truth, and the life McCloskey portrays God as jaded, accusatory, argumentative, uncaring, incompetent, unforgiving, and punitive. Mr. McCloskey is putting forth a cause and effect argument absent of consequences. McCloskey says the best proofs of the non existence of God are the barbarous acts of men and women and he circumvents morality, and focuses on evil, because morality is stronger proof that an intelligent creator intentional the universe. As a result, McCloskey struggles with the examination AWhy is in that respect evil and suffering in the earth?3The Cosmological ArgumentIn his book Reasonable Faith, William way Craig, writes, There must exist a creator, or a cosmos responsible for all creation and that creator has no need of a cause, as do those things which have an origin. So everything that begins to exist does need a ca use, but to say that something has no beginning does not need a cause, denies the existence of a predecessor.4In Dr. Evans book, Philosophy of Religion, he summarized the cause question saying, The person who believes in God and the person who does not believe in God, do not merely disagree nearly God. They disagree about the very character of the universe.If God does not exist, object lens moral set do not exist and since they do, then God does exist. Cultural relativism makes the finishing the supreme determinant of right and ill-treat so, the culture becomes god. McCloskey flippantly and wrong asserts, There is no God, because of all the evil and wickedness in the world.5Mr. McCloskey argues against theism and paints a picture of humanity being little more than puppets and acts that we classify as murder, torture, and rape are natural and amoral just as in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no rule of law to prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligatio ns or prohibitions? The cosmological argument asks Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because its good? Theists have traditionally taught God wills something, because He is good, but that doesnt ignore divine sovereignty. William Craigs answer is, Gods moral reputation is itself the ultimate standard of moral goodness. Gods moral nature is what Plato called the Good. He is the lineage of moral value.6The Teleological ArgumentMcCloskey claims, as does many philosophers, that in invest to believe that nature was designed, there would need to be examples that were indisputable. The Argument of Design, appeals to a principle of reasoning that seems to be firmly embedded in common sense and in scientific thinking, so he asks, How can evil exist if an omnipotent God really exists? That brings us to the concept of forfeit moral will. Evil is not something God deliberately and maliciously created so that humans could experience pain and suffering. Atheist s never deal with the question of what the social occasion of mans existence is.Julian Huxley, fiting the atheist view, said We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a rocknroll to Earth, or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was make flesh by a long series of singularly practiced accidents.7McCloskey asks why God cant keep humans from making wrong decisions? The teleological argument says, To approach this proof, indisputable examples of design would be required. primarily speaking, to give an example of design, would make it possible that there is a motive and in order for that possibility to exist, God must exist McCloskey says, No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was so much suffering or in which his creatures would engage in morally evil acts, which often result in injury to open persons.8Moral evil is caused by the actions and wrong choices of discharge, morally responsible beings. pictorial evil, is the evil that does not occur as a result of a responsibly moral being. God is justified in allowing evil, because he is God and we are not Alvin Plantinga in his book God, Freedom, and Evil writes, God has reasons for allowing evil that we cant know and would not understand if we did. Some of the evils in the world happen in order to produce second order equitys. For example, a first order evil occurs, when a grizzly stick out charges a mans daughter perhaps a second order virtue, courage, is produced when the man charges the bear waving his arms to scare the bear off. Or, if the bear gets the girl, which would be evil, persistence and reliance on Christ could be the second order virtue of the man. The second order evils that occur, are opposite virtues, such as cowardice? This is the result of the mistakes of Man and his poor use of free choice.9McCloskeys discussion of free will begins when he asks why God did not arrange so that man always makes the right choice. His argument, is not logical, because had God decreed that everyone always choose the right path, then no one would have a free will. As Evans stated in his book, Philosophy of Religion opinion About Faith, AGod allows human kind a free will, because without it we could not be morally responsible, nor would we be capable of freely doing good by responding to and kind our Creator. Atheists cannot always argue that free will and necessitation to virtue are incompatible, because they represent God himself as possessing a free will and as being incapable of acting immorally. If this can be the case with God, why can it not be so with all free agents?10The Presence of Evil.There is the idea postulated worldwide that states, the amount of good in the world finally outweighs the evil in the world. Its the Agreater emailprotected argument where a greater good is achieved and therefore the good will always outweigh the bad. So by McCloskeys definition, sell murder is wrong, but unavoidab le. If the atheist says there is no such thing as objective morality, the atheist loses all credibility. In JudeoChristian theism, we believe objective morality exists, and is the byproduct of the regenerate heart and mind, and if morality is transcendent of the opinions of man, it becomes zero point more than logic, when in fact morality is far more all important(p) than logic. So does atheism have a better explanation for the existence of objective morality? McCloskey offers nothing to the debateungodliness is not consolingOur universe is a maze of mysteries, like how can gravity snap the Milky Way into a spiral?How can atoms contain such power that matter, smaller than a dime, produced the energy in the bomb that killed 100,000 Hiroshima residents? How can the doublehelix thread of DNA create all living things, from bacteria to trees to van Beethoven? How can electrons, dormant in every atom of your body, explode into uncivilized lightning bolts when theyre detached? Why doe s anything exist? If we say that the power of gravity, atoms, DNA, lightning and all the rest is God B and that God is E = MC2 B then God exists. Those baffling forces are undeniably real. McCloskey offers some encouragement and insight saying, Atheism is not comforting when you consider the problem of evil. Instead, atheism adopted by a thoughtful and sensitive person, leads to a spirit of self reliance, and self respect which demands that we comfort and help those who need such support, because it will mitigate the blows of fate.11William Lane Craig was absolutely accurate when he spoke ingeniously, If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life.12