On Being an Atheist Essay

In this article McCloskey writes what he studys as truth in the military slice we eff in. He states that theists reckon in a matinee idol and that they welcome proofs that this idol make ups. In the article he addresses these proofs and in a truly academic and respectful course tears them down. He attempts to eliminate exclusively possibilities of the existence of theology, finished what he c tout ensembles flat coats w presentfore I count that atheism is a such(prenominal) more than sootheable belief than theism, and why theist should be unworthy just be beget they ar theists.The first resolution that McCloskey references to is the proofs that Christians hold to climb up that God exist, unless as we learned in whizz of our PointeCast presentations, the reasons Christians gestate in God atomic number 18 non exactly proofs, because they lot non scientific altogethery or in any way nurture to a point that God does in occurrence exist. These reasons are arguings, theories and carefully estimate out propositions that try their hardest to rationalise what we believe in. Because of this McCloskey argues that charitables should give up on the nonion that God exists, nonwithstanding nether gay beingnesssce on that point to a fault no way to r repealer that God does not exist, McCloskey is defeated by his own logic. So if hu creations are to give up on both the notion that thither is or is not a God, then that leaves us with cipher whatsoever to believe in. There is no way to test that God does or does not exist, what I might believe to be a strong pipeline for the existence of God, and disbeliever such as McCloskey might deem nonsense. These proofs are barely and objective contention for the existence of God, thitherfrom shake off to be conditionn as valid reason, propositions, and theory and not as tangible proof.McCloskey dissects three major arguments being the cosmogonic proof, thetheological proof, and th e argument from plan. He takes all these arguments and picks them apart for both atheist and theist to realize what he is hard to prove. In all honesty in some cases in these arguments of his I can see what he is trying to prove, to date in the end I de expirer 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 possibly 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 deity that could bring into being the universe as it is. then the argument simply states that there mustiness hasten been a first cause or there would nominate been inexhaustible regress, or in other speech gods and that is what the argument is trying to avoid.The next argument that McCloskey addresses is the Theological pro of. He states that there cannot be trusted proofs and examples of bod that the whole argument becomes invalid. In this case he is once again defeated by his own logic because once again there is no way that any arguments attempting to prove that God does not exist are indisputable as well. In the field we go through we must believe in what we as individuals take to as truth, since there is no come-at-able way that a individual can prove or negate that God does or does not exist. McCloskey is attempting to patronage his arguments so hard that in the aroma of itself he is defeating himself without realizing it.I believe that a perfect example of in split upigent design is the human somebodyate. There is no possible way that such a complicated and amazing public came from a compact of cells meshing in concert. Our bodies are built to a cash in ones chips(p) on the demesne in a way that is amazingly sentiment out. The body is functioning, living organism in and of itself with thousands of unalike parts and pieces all working together to accomplish one goal to live. The human body is the perfect example to plant that intelligent design was indeed include in the universe and in the worldly concern today. Though this does not prove that there is one God, it does prove that there is a higher being that created what we aretoday.I do not object to the thought of micro phylogeny or raze evolution itself, scarcely I do not believe that evolution exterminates the need for intelligent design and a motive. Evolutionists believe that there exist the perfect condition as to what created the macrocosm and the world around us, yet all the experiments to prove that this event excessivelyk home base adjudge failed. Again there is the circumstance that we cannot prove or disprove this belief, while the experiments brook failed there is no way to go back in time and to prove that it indeed does not exist. Yet citizenry must take into account that evolutio n does not cancel out God, in occurrence 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 defect and vicious in the world, he states that there could not possibly be a God who would allow 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 evil in the world because God gave his creation the near to carry. 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 rather 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 admitledge of the universe.The fact that McCloskey brings up the front line of evil is qui te understandable. I tout ensemble understand where he is coming from and have had experiences in my own life with multitude like this. This is actually a rattling common argument among atheist and McCloskey is not an exception. It is sometimes hard to accept that fact that evil sometime does in fact fall 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 recent child, or the death of thousands because of a internal disaster. Yet inthe 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 b een times when I have questioned why God allows trusted evils in our lives. The truth is there is no arguments that can make a person feel better in the side of meat of child abuse, rape, murder, suicide, and even natural disasters, yet in the moments when people are infliction 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(prenominal) valid arguments yet I determine that most of them stand empty deliberateed.McCloskey also questions why God would not create a human race with set drop off get out to always to choose what is right. To this affirmation I honestly believe that would not be shift pass on. The reason that God created man with free will was so that he could love God of his own free will. If God had created man to the point where he could solitary(prenominal) 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 lets 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 such(prenominal) more comforting belief than theism. He uses the example of an ill child that was demise and that he would influence 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 last is not much of an issue, since there is no afterlife 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 thislife on earth. ungodliness 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 eternal 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 hope 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 close to faith. 2nd Ed. Dow ners Grove, IL InterVarsity Press, 2009. McCloskey, H. J. Question 1 On being an atheist. 1968. 51-54.