Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Now I'd like to respond to H. J. McCloskey's essay entitled, "On Being an Atheist." In his article, McCloskey gives several of his atheistic opinions and criticizes the theistic position. As a theist myself, '' McCloskey perspective somewhat alarmed me. I find it difficult to believe that somebody could wholeheartedly deny the presence and love of God. I understand atheist who have transformed, who have said that deep down in their heart, they all understood that their views had been incorrect. Could this be the situation for McCloskey? Deep down in his heart, does he even know that his perspectives are wrong? In my response, I will address key points and quite specific areas of McCloskey's article. First McCloskey asserts that the cosmological argument "doesn't entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." I would argue that McCloskey is denying that the principle of sufficient reason, and has chosen to rival it out of a more realistic perspective. The cosmological argument is one debate among many that does not disqualify theist from postulating an all-powerful, all-perfect uncaused cause. The cosmological argument based on Evans and Manis' represents one who is in the place to learn more about God. This position is just one of openness, not doubt like McCloskey's mindset. For example, think about the structure of an auto. Automobiles are made to transfer folks to great distances and at a much faster rate than they ever could achieve by walking. The base of a car is known as the uni-body. The flooring, roof and sides are welded to the frame of the body. Next, the doors, hood and back are constructed and assembled. After the vehicle is sent into an outsized furnace, it's overlaid with clear-coat. When the outside is finished, they com...