Response Paper
Response Paper
The presence and existence of God is seen in our daily lives through the practices and the relevant undertaking that we pass through without knowledge of how successfully they pass. To be aware of God, however, implies that one is certain of the belief in His dominical that surrounds every human being, and in everything that is in the universe. McCloskey in his article, “On Being Atheist” attempts to provide proof that the existence of God is not true; with various claims why atheism is a much easier concept to understand compared to theism (McCloskey, 1968). However, a reflection that relates to the existence of God according to Foreman might be most a significant question that one can ask in their lifetime.
More results are perceived from the flow of such reflections than from answering any other basic question. The answer that is given to the question of the existence of God has the influence to the perceptions of the world, the concepts that are placed in the world and the life that an individual as chosen to live. All human aspects are affected by weather a person regards human beings as supreme beings within the universe or as subjects to a superior being. Everyone’s perception, however, has a variation to another with dependence on the answer that is given to the question of God’s existence. The question has relations to the adequate contemplation of human existence and the relations of human beings, Therefore, as Foreman asserts, the existence of God is warranted, “properly basic belief.” Which in his argument he considers warrant as a proper functioning at the time when an individual’s heart beats with normal activity function level
McCloskey provides claim that theism is vague, considering God’s concept as a cosmological argument which provides attempts to show God’s presence cause of evidence of the cosmos or the world. In cosmological argument, he asserts that the initial cause is to be explained by an uncaused caused. In other words, there should be a different person or something that causes the action. There are questions that McCloksey claimed that took place cosmologically by the help of something other than God. It is worth noting that McCloskey claimed that was other forces at work that help in creating the universe what according to him he considers -the Big Bang Theory. And the fact that humans came out of the universe with the help of the Big Bang Theory, and also that humans evolved from some creatures in the animal Kingdom. However, Evans and Manis asserts that God is the creator and ruler of the universe.
God has three distinct personalities –the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. God is immaterial He is with no shape or form but can be everywhere anytime. McCloskey does, however, believe in seeing a form of substance before believing. God has a lot of names and attributes that indicate to humans who He is and what He does to Humans, an argument to McCloskey said to be ontological, meaning we are attempting to prove that God does exist. McCloskey concluded that this “intentionally-muddling spirit caused insecurity and arrest of the world” (McCloskey, 1968, pg. 62). There is one problem with this statement: God does not authorize evil. McCloskey does not seem to understand that there is a force that is behind evil known as the Satan (the devil). Examples of attributes are omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
On Technological Argument
A technological argument can be considered a design point of considerate that shows the existence of a tailor or designer which is the creator of the objects of the universe. This can be considered a basic assumption that which has similarities to the Cosmological Argument. It indicates that every God's design for one, has greater design, and adherence to a much-enhanced designer of the universe; therefore, there exists a world designer. McCloskey provides claims that the proof for such argument has to be “genuine and undisputable examples”. In other words, McCloskey means that the evidence and examples need to be refuted and additionally asserts that the indisputable claims are necessary and those that can be considered unreasonable in a simple sense that God has no definition. In my opinion, any provided evidence or example that relates to the existence inform of nature itself, indicates the affirmativeness of the creator indisputably; there is nothing that is disputable of such reasonable claims. One word for McCloskey’s assertion is that the “presence of imperfection and evil does not go hand in hand with the perfection of a Divine Creator, who sets perfection for the good, but an individual who prefers sin made the evil imperfection possible.
McCloskey turns his consideration regarding the Cosmological Argument to which he firmly has protested. Numerous theists endeavor to finish up the presence of a powerful being as the explanation behind the presence of the universe this is known as a Cosmological Argument (p. 67). As I would like to think, this implies all together for the universe to be/exist, something needed to exist first to have made it. Nothing can make or deliver of itself there must be a free planner that existed before the universe. In light of this case, McCloskey voices his protest asserting that "the negligible existence of the world constitutes no explanation behind having faith in the presence of such a being." Evans and Manis react to this complaint by introducing a "non-transient structure" to the cosmological contention.
The non-fleeting structure utilizes a few sections of the cosmological contention to frame an explanation behind the universe's presence, with three segments that state: 1. some unforeseen creatures as of now existed they had no starting and clarifies what causes the universe is essential and uncaused (Evans & Manis, 2010). To say that the universe had no starting, as I would see it, inclines more towards the evolutionistic thought of the Big Bang hypothesis, where it is trusted that the universe showed up after the purported enormous blast. 2. On the off chance that the universe exists then, there must be an important being as their definitive cause that requires clarification. 3. There is a vital being that exists and is a definitive reason for the universe which requires no clarification (pp. 68-69). My reaction is this, to say that everything in nature is propelled by chance, which is not the case, following everything in nature needs some direction. It is a procedure since everything in nature has a particular development and a specific capacity. On the off chance that the is no Divine Designer and if everything in nature worked by chance we would potentially have snow in the late spring because everything is not working as indicated by request and haphazardly do whatever they need
According to McCloskey, God is a being that formed evil through interfering with a man and upsetting nature boundaries. McCloskey does reject the existence of God due to the question perfection of His character (Elwell, 2001). In other words, according to him he questions the perfection of God yet at the same time He allows evil to infiltrate the world? However, Evans and Manis suggest, there is nowhere a particular piece of writing suggesting that God is evil, but in most writings God is considered as a person of justice, merciful and loving. Evil came from a different immaterial substance other than God. Mc Closkey did not consider the possibility that there could be someone else who works on creating Evil and causing suffering to people. Despite our actions, evil does find its ways amongst people.
On the Problem of Evil
All through his article, McCloskey emphasizes on the objection to the issue that relates to evil. He asserts that “No being, which was perfect and good could have created the world in which there is unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would - and as a matter of fact could have been created so as not to –engage in morality evil acts, which often can result to injuring innocent individuals. Evans and Manis indicate that the problem of evils is among the very familiar objections that present itself through atheists to the reason for believing in God. Such objections are posed with the help of occurrences of wrong doings as well as present sufferings that are already present. Most people, similar to McCloskey diminish God’s existence based on evil.
Traditional theistic concepts that affirm Gods presence indicate that God is benevolent (all-merciful), omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), while at the same time atheists have it that if God based on the existence of evil, could it stop and suffering be prevented. Other theists have a response to similar issues that relate to veil, and they exclaim that with the free-will defense, that indicates that God is the creator of human begins with his willingness, it is considerable have freedom of choice than to have been created with no freedom to choose on what to undertake. Most evil that is experienced in the world is due to man's choosing; some people choose to do evil (Swinburne, 1998). However, unlike the evil doers, humans are supposed to choose to believe in God, praise and worship Him. God had the choice of eliminating Evil, but then he would have left no option of choosing. In case he would have eliminated evil, the Christ would not have had to come in the offering of salvation; neither would He have died for the sins of human beings.
On Atheism as Confronting
While concluding his article, McCloskey states that atheism is much confronting than theism. For another time, he exemplifies the evil existence and the suffering that accompanies it is in support of his atheistic ideas that perfect human beings chance not the ability to exist and permit bad things to occur. He asserts that individuals who choose to follow after theism have a cold comfort in believing religiously and that an individual should look for comfort and strength in whichever place they can find it. Considering this fact in a real sense, most of the time people when they are in need of comfort they look for a strong believer such as a pastor to assist them in understanding things that are not clear to them, both bad and good. Biblical understanding for comfort is encouragement, which can be through words an individual’s presence or assistance in the times of need.
References
McCloskey, H. J. (1968). On Being an Atheist. Question One (February 1968), 62-69.
Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2010). Philosophy of religion: thinking about faith. InterVarsity Press.
Elwell, W. A. (2001). Evangelical dictionary of theology. Baker Academic.
Swinburne, R. (1998). Providence and the Problem of Evil. OUP Oxford.
Elwell, W. A. (1996). Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. StudyLight. org/Baker/Paternoster.
