Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Several years back notable atheist H. J. McCloskey wrote an article titled "On Being an Atheist." In that report, McCloskey tries to refute some standard arguments for the presence of God. What's more, in an effort to create a favorable case for atheism, he presents the problem of evil and indicates that the comfort of atheism. Can McCloskey's attempt to sabotage theistic belief triumph? Is it still possible to be an intellectually fulfilled theist after considering his attacks? McCloskey does not present a solid case for the reality of atheism. His conscience into the theistic arguments are ineffective in demonstrating theism to become unsound. Unfortunately, he fails to address a number of significant arguments for the presence of God. McCloskey indicates that the theistic proofs ought to be reversed because he doesn't consider them to be totally decisive. McCloskey sets the bar unrealistically high for its proofs for God's existence. Theistic proofs give good reasons to believe theism is most likely correct. Should McCloskey's standard be applied to each argument? Or is it merely in the case of God that he considers things must be established to the level of certainty? Can McCloskey's arguments also satisfy his own strict standard? When they don't subsequently McCloskey refutes himself. McCloskey would be better served to view theistic arguments because a cumulative case where every argument compliments, and builds upon another in demonstrating various aspects of the Creator. In this respect, each discussion for theism provides hints to the nature of God, but does not supply every conceivable attribute. Another perspective McCloskey should have considered is the best explanation of the facts presented in the remarks? The case for God is stronger when th...