On Being an Atheist Essay

In this article McCloskey writes what he hopes as truth in the introduction we live in. He states that theists see in a beau ideal and that they experience evidences that this divinity fudge endures. In the article he addresses these proofs and in a very(prenominal) academic and respectful way tears them d deliver. He attempts to legislate only possibilities of the organism of god, through what he c completelys primers why I believe that atheism is a much more teething ringable belief than theism, and why theist should be miserable just because they are theists.The first make love that McCloskey references to is the proofs that Christians hold to essay that God exist, scarcely as we learned in wiz of our PointeCast presentations, the causes Christians believe in God are non on the button proofs, because they cannot scientifically or in any way prove to a point that God does in incident exist. These closes are program lines, theories and carefully suppositio n out propositions that try their starkest to dislodge what we believe in. Because of this McCloskey argues that humans should give up on the notion that God exists, yet ill-doingce in that respect too no way to prove that God does not exist, McCloskey is defeated by his make logic. So if humans are to give up on both the notion that t present is or is not a God, and because that leaves us with nothing whatsoever to believe in. There is no way to prove that God does or does not exist, what I might believe to be a strong argument for the existence of God, and unbelieving such as McCloskey might deem nonsense. These proofs are solely and objective argument for the existence of God, thus grant to be taken as validated argument, propositions, and theory and not as tangible proof.McCloskey dissects three major arguments beingness the cosmogenic proof, thetheological proof, and the argument from design. He takes all these arguments and picks them apart for both atheist and theist to see what he is stressful to prove. In all candor in some cases in these arguments of his I can see what he is trying to prove, yet in the end 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 possibly assume without proof on an an all-powerful, all- double-dyed(a), 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 lay down the initiation as it is. Thus the argument scarcely states that thither essentialiness have been a first cause or there would have been infinite regress, or in some other words 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 incontestable proofs and typefaces of design that the whole argument be comes 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 world we live we must believe in what we as individuals take to as truth, since there is no mathematical way that a person can prove or disprove that God does or does not exist. McCloskey is attempting to support his arguments so hard that in the essence of itself he is defeating himself without realizing it.I believe that a gross(a) representative of in expressigent design is the human body. There is no possible way that such a complex and amazing innovation came from a bunch of cells meshing in concert. Our bodies are built to live on the earthly concern in a way that is amazingly thought out. The body is functioning, life history organism in and of itself with thousands of different parts and pieces all working together to accomplish one goal to live. The human body is the pe rfect example to show that intelligent design was thusly included 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 aretoday.I do not object to the thought of microphylogenesis or tear down exploitation itself, but I do not believe that evolution exterminates the submit for intelligent design and a creator. Evolutionists believe that there exist the perfect condition as to what created the cosmos and the world around us, yet all the experiments to prove that this event took place have failed. Again there is the incident 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 throng must take into account that evolution does not cancel out God, in point why couldnt it have been God himself that created the perfect condition that brought into place evolution.McCloskey al so addresses the fact that there is imperfection and aversion in the world, he states that there could not possibly be a God who would allow this. First of all, the cosmogonical 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 chasten to choose. 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. afterwards all he is simply a person in the world he himself is not the creator and definitely does not have all the cutledge of the universe.The fact that McCloskey brings up the presence of evil is quite understandable. I completely understand where he is coming from and have had experiences in my own life with people like this. This is actually a ver y roughhewn 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 trouble with the problem of evil when they themselves believe in a dear(p) God. In this argument I frankly 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 natural 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 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 feel better in the face of ch ild 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 bunk suffers from our own choices. McCloskey makes some very valid arguments yet I find that most of them stand empty handed.McCloskey also questions why God would not create a human race with unloose will to always to choose what is right. To this statement I honestly believe that would not be relievewill. 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 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 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 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 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 e xistence 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. commonsensical faith Christian truth and apologetics. 3rd Ed. Wheaton, IL Crossway Books, 2008. 71-90. Evans, C. S., Manis, R. Z. philosophical system 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.