Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
In the essay "On Being an Atheist", H. J. McCloskey attempts to show that believing in God is unreasonable. McCloskey first tries to point out flaws in theism by attempting to disprove the cosmological as well as the teleological arguments. After trying to show the defects in the two argument he brings up the problem of evil to attempt and discredit theism as a self-contradictory belief. In the end of the post he tries to show his viewers that atheism is reassuring and that theism isn't. When you go through McCloskey's debate it shows numerous flaws in his reasoning as he wanted to show that it's impossible that there's a God. Throughout McCloskey's article he refers to this theist don't a proofs that there is a God, so they shouldn't be used. The trouble with this is that atheist and theist would have to purge of all their arguments because of why most everything doesn't prove the argument. McCloskey is correct that the "proofs" don't completely establish that there is a God, but they do give us a much better understanding regarding the world and when there's a God. The cosmological and the teleological arguments are only debate, so they don't completely prove that there is a God as Dr. Foreman says, "that these argument offer us a best explanation" (Foreman). McCloskey is incorrect in saying that the arguments should be abandoned for why, even though that they don't completely prove that there's a God, they are "starting blocks" which have to be better elegant to make a more complete argument for a essential being, like the God of Christianity. In the event that you should abandon these arguments that do not totally demonstrate what they have been attempting to, then you would have abandoned many other augments such as evolution. There must be a neces...