McCloskey argues against several common arguments for the existence of God in his article "On Being an Atheist". He rejects the cosmological, teleological, and design arguments. He also claims that the existence of evil in the world disproves an all-powerful, all-good God. Additionally, McCloskey asserts that atheism is a more rational and comforting belief than faith in God. The response paper critiques McCloskey's arguments, pointing out logical flaws and inconsistencies. It defends theistic arguments and addresses the problem of evil by distinguishing types of evil and arguing that moral evil can coexist with free will.
Some thinker has said, ‘A smattering of knowledge
turns people away from God. Grater knowledge
brings them back to Him’. The author concludes in
this book by examining various theories that the
choice humanity have is not between the universe
with God and the universe without God. The real
option is between the universe without God. The
real option is between the universe with God and
no universe at all. Therefore humanity is compelled
to opt for the proposition the universe with God.
Hence it is logical to say l exist, therefore, God exist.
This book proves the existence of God beyond
doubt. After reading it a reader has responded as
fellows?
Does God Exist? A question that even atheists spend a lot of time on, having concluded already that there is no God. Hava look at the framework of a lesson I put togther to explore the question.
Some thinker has said, ‘A smattering of knowledge
turns people away from God. Grater knowledge
brings them back to Him’. The author concludes in
this book by examining various theories that the
choice humanity have is not between the universe
with God and the universe without God. The real
option is between the universe without God. The
real option is between the universe with God and
no universe at all. Therefore humanity is compelled
to opt for the proposition the universe with God.
Hence it is logical to say l exist, therefore, God exist.
This book proves the existence of God beyond
doubt. After reading it a reader has responded as
fellows?
Does God Exist? A question that even atheists spend a lot of time on, having concluded already that there is no God. Hava look at the framework of a lesson I put togther to explore the question.
The author examines available evidence to examine the question of "Are we alone?", i.e., whether humans are the only intelligent species in the Milky Way, or if the galaxy is teeming with advanced civilizations. The author discusses barriers to physical contact with extra-terrestrial beings and addresses Fermi's paradox "Where is everybody?" using the Drake Equation. The final answer is surprising, disturbing, and inspirational all at the same time. The appendix analyzes the strategy of the SETI project from and engineer's point of view, and offers some advice to maximize the chances of finding alien civilizations who may be transmitting beacon signals to announce their presence: Look for them in the Andromeda galaxy.
Intro to Apologetics for a multi-week home group course by a BEd and Biola MA Apologetics grad. An overview of the Christian view of evil and suffering including definitions, traditional approach, historical development, current understandings, objections and responses, a better alternative, and the atheists' dilemma.
This was for our Philosophy of Religion examination which required us to explain the arguments that prove God's existence: ontological argument ,cosmological argument ,teleological argument ,argument from conscience ,pragmatic argument ,argument from life’s crucial junctures , and argument from religious experience.
Discoverability Score
Philosophical presentation about existence of God and against the existence of God,Problem of Evil,teleological argument,Empirical argument,North South University,God,Monotheist,Islam,Hinduism,Christianity,
The author examines available evidence to examine the question of "Are we alone?", i.e., whether humans are the only intelligent species in the Milky Way, or if the galaxy is teeming with advanced civilizations. The author discusses barriers to physical contact with extra-terrestrial beings and addresses Fermi's paradox "Where is everybody?" using the Drake Equation. The final answer is surprising, disturbing, and inspirational all at the same time. The appendix analyzes the strategy of the SETI project from and engineer's point of view, and offers some advice to maximize the chances of finding alien civilizations who may be transmitting beacon signals to announce their presence: Look for them in the Andromeda galaxy.
Intro to Apologetics for a multi-week home group course by a BEd and Biola MA Apologetics grad. An overview of the Christian view of evil and suffering including definitions, traditional approach, historical development, current understandings, objections and responses, a better alternative, and the atheists' dilemma.
This was for our Philosophy of Religion examination which required us to explain the arguments that prove God's existence: ontological argument ,cosmological argument ,teleological argument ,argument from conscience ,pragmatic argument ,argument from life’s crucial junctures , and argument from religious experience.
Discoverability Score
Philosophical presentation about existence of God and against the existence of God,Problem of Evil,teleological argument,Empirical argument,North South University,God,Monotheist,Islam,Hinduism,Christianity,
Must A Darwinian be Skeptical About ReligionRachels Chapter .docxrosemarybdodson23141
Must A Darwinian be Skeptical About Religion?
Rachels: Chapter Three
1
Introduction
This chapter is Rachels’ attempt to undermine the image of God thesis.
Is evolution by natural selection compatible with religion? The answer largely depends on what we mean by “religion”. Rachels certainly thinks it is incompatible with Christianity, Specifically, it is incompatible with a religious view powerful enough to support the image of God thesis that is part of the foundation for the doctrine of human dignity.
2
Darwin’s Doubts
Darwin thought he would enter the ministry at Cambridge. Over his lifetime, his private doubts about Christianity grew.
His wife a devout Christian, and he was sensitive to her beliefs.
At his death, likely an agnostic
Never his intention to overthrow Christianity
3
Key concepts: Atheist, Theist, Deist, Agnostic
3
The Argument From Evil
How can the belief in a good and powerful being be squared with the existence of a evil?
“Evil” means natural evil (e.g., a natural event like a tsunami) and moral evil (e.g., an agent intended event like a murder)
If the deity is all good, the deity would not desire evil to exist. If the deity is all powerful, the deity could prevent evil. Evil exists. So the deity is neither all good nor all powerful. So belief in such a deity is unreasonable.
4
Theological Responses
Evil (badness) is necessary to make goodness meaningful - evil is necessary for contrast.
Evil is punishment for human disobedience in the garden.
Evil is a consequence of human free will – humans create evil.
Evil is something necessary to build human character – one must struggle against evil to become a good person
The reason for evil is incomprehensible to human beings
5
Key concept: The argument from evil. Review also Rachels’ responses to the theological explanations of evil’s existence in chapter three.
5
Darwin’s Twist on the Argument from Evil
The argument only considers evil to humans (anthropocentric). But countless animals endured horrible pain before human existence, and do currently. The theological responses don’t address this point.
The existence of evil (as pain), more consistent with evolution by natural selection than evolution by a an all-perfect Deity. A struggle for survival will entail pain for sentient beings.
6
Paley and the argument from design
William Paley – elegant presentation of the analogical argument for design to show divine existence. The world shows unmistakable signs of a designer. One can infer from this that there is a God.
The analogy: A telescope is an artifact to enhance vision. It clearly has a purpose. It’s absurd to think there is no maker, i.e. it is not the product of chance.
An eye is a complex organ for sight. It clearly has a purpose and by analogy it’s absurd to think there is no maker. So, there is a designer and that is the deity.
David Hume’s response to this argument. We do not have to infer the maker of a telescope. We know that he exists. We do have to.
Major Representatives of the Three ModelsFIRST MODELMaterial.docxsmile790243
Major Representatives of the Three Models
FIRST MODEL
Materialism
MATERIALISM/SCIENTISM/ATHEISM
The first ontological system we will view will be materialism (others may call this system scientism or even atheism). With each system we will first state the claim the system makes, next give the arguments in support of the claim, and last present some challenges to the claim.
Some people unfortunately get upset whenever their beliefs are challenged. Well, every system faces challenges...EVERY system. The question each person has to decide is whether or not the challenges actually defeat the claims. If the challengers are defeaters (something only YOU can determine), then you need to abandon that system and find one whose challengers are not defeaters.
THE MAJOR CLAIM OF MATERIALISM
The Claim
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, materialists/atheists make up between 2.4-3.8% of the world's population. According to materialists, matter and its component parts are all that essentially exist. This does not claim that matter exists (even the third model asserts that); rather it claims that matter including its component parts is the only thing which exists.
Characteristics of MaterialismEthical Systems Produced by MaterialismAccording to Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, the famous French existentialists of the mid 20th century, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, therefore, a person cannot speak of right in any true sense of the word. See also Richard Rorty (Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature) who claims that right and wrong don’t exist because our brain is only purely chemical, with the synapses firing off electrical impulses, thereby providing no real basis for absolute morality.
Survival of the fittest: the strong wins, that is, the development of the Uebermensch, that is, Superman (Nietzsche). If you take people out of the equation, you will see that this dominates the rest of the universe (this will be one of Nietzsche’s arguments in Beyond Good and Evil). The fittest may be the fittest intellectually or physically or emotionally/psychologically. But the fittest or the strongest is going to win and should win.
Modern Versions: Although materialists (secular humanists) reject the belief that God exists, many materialists today claim that man is valuable and possesses certain rights, such as right to health, a decent standard of living, and education. As a result, ethics should be based upon what is best for society as a whole. Altruism: showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others; unselfishness.
Epistemological Claim by Some Materialists
Some materialists, especially Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bertrand Russell, assert the supremacy of reason in dealing with knowledge. Coupling reason with an absolute certain belief in the existence of matter, these have claimed that God does not exist. They are following in the train of Bertrand Russell, a prominent British materialist of ...
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
This is a presentation by Dada Robert in a Your Skill Boost masterclass organised by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan (EFSS) on Saturday, the 25th and Sunday, the 26th of May 2024.
He discussed the concept of quality improvement, emphasizing its applicability to various aspects of life, including personal, project, and program improvements. He defined quality as doing the right thing at the right time in the right way to achieve the best possible results and discussed the concept of the "gap" between what we know and what we do, and how this gap represents the areas we need to improve. He explained the scientific approach to quality improvement, which involves systematic performance analysis, testing and learning, and implementing change ideas. He also highlighted the importance of client focus and a team approach to quality improvement.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
How to Split Bills in the Odoo 17 POS ModuleCeline George
Bills have a main role in point of sale procedure. It will help to track sales, handling payments and giving receipts to customers. Bill splitting also has an important role in POS. For example, If some friends come together for dinner and if they want to divide the bill then it is possible by POS bill splitting. This slide will show how to split bills in odoo 17 POS.
We all have good and bad thoughts from time to time and situation to situation. We are bombarded daily with spiraling thoughts(both negative and positive) creating all-consuming feel , making us difficult to manage with associated suffering. Good thoughts are like our Mob Signal (Positive thought) amidst noise(negative thought) in the atmosphere. Negative thoughts like noise outweigh positive thoughts. These thoughts often create unwanted confusion, trouble, stress and frustration in our mind as well as chaos in our physical world. Negative thoughts are also known as “distorted thinking”.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
1. RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE 1
Response Paper Mccloskey Article
Clark Hernanser
PHIL 201
February 24, 2013
Ramon Graces
2. RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE 2
Response Paper Mccloskey Article
In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more
reasonable and comfortable belief than that of Christianity. McCloskey argued against the three
theistic proofs, which are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the
argument from design. He pointed out the existence of evil in the world that God made. He
also pointed out that it is irrational to live by faith. According to McCloskey, proofs do not
necessarily play a vital role in the belief of God. Page 62 of the article states that "most theists
do not come to believe in God as a basis for religious belief, but come to religion as a result of
other reasons and factors." However, he feels that as far as proofs serve theists, the three most
commonly accepted are the cosmological, the teleological, and the argument from design. It is
important to note that he considers these arguments as reasons to "move ordinary theists to their
theism." (McCloskey 1968) This is not necessary the case and contradicts the former statement
that most theists do not hold to these proofs. As such, the attempt to dispute these arguments as
a reason not to believe in God is almost not worth attempting. If theists do not generally hold to
these proofs as reasons for faith, then why bother trying to dispute them to theists? Continuing
to do so seems as though he is motivated to prove a point few are not interested in disputing, and
thus is purposely trying to set up theist belief as ridiculous; in other words, he is looking to pick
to a fight. This is not an intellectual objective article. Bias necessarily forfeits intellectual
objectivity.
McCloskey argued that the cosmological argument was an argument from the existence
of the world, as we know it. He stated that believing in an uncaused first cause of the universe
is a problem because nothing about our universe forces us to that conclusion. The cause-effect
rationalization understands a relation between things that are in existence, will come into
3. RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE 3
existence, and pass out of existence. If God, or something else (a power, force, whatever) were
part of the frame of causation already in motion, then it would belong to that which is caused by
something else. The uncaused cause holds to that which is outside the framework of
causation. Most philosophers hold that this first cause cannot be caused for the reason that it is
outside causation. Something would need to set forth in motion the ring of causality. If the
premise stands, then such a first cause would have to exist necessarily, otherwise it would have
been caused. This necessity is one of causal relation, as long as the premise is accepted.
As regards the cosmological argument itself, McCloskey states that "all we entitled to
infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and
this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause." (p.63) This is
indeed true, there is no reason to necessarily infer a God person, however; the inference is of the
nature that suggests (hence the term infer) a cause of such magnitude that it is practically God-
like. Moreover, his words do not disprove the rational of a God. Entitlement not to call this
cause "God" is neither entitlement to deny calling this cause or considering this cause to be
"God."
McCloskey grouped the teleological argument and the argument from design together
and summarily rejected them both by suggesting that mankind does not yet have a full
understanding about creation. He offers the theory of evolution as the explanation of many
examples of creation that would have once been explained by the teleological and argument from
design. The objections in this section are based on his want for "indisputable" proofs (p.64) of
design in the same manner as there are supposedly indisputable proofs for evolution. The
primary difficulty of evolution is that is has no proof of the actual existence of first organism
development nor the actual pattern of this evolution. The whole theory is based on biological
4. RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE 4
likeness between organisms. The weakness of this argument is many. First, the change from
simple forms to such complex forms of diverse species. Did we all exist as the same simple
organism or did many simple organisms exist and evolve? In either case, there is no foundation
for understanding where those first life forms came from. At the same time, other things come
into play that we do not understand. For example, are we part descendents from Dinosaurs? If
they were erased from the earth for whatever reason, did their biological complexities survive
into part of us today? What came after them to evolve into the millions of organisms in
existence today?
The second issue regards the problem of similarity. Evidently, there are biological
similarities between organisms, yet is this sufficient to disprove the presence of God? Science
affirms what is there - the physical - not what we are. Despite the similarities, the differences are
of greater magnitude. It is difficult to reconcile the enormous leap from animal to man. How
can self-understanding and self-realization be explained biologically through evolution? This
essential difference is too enormous.
The argument from design, or intelligent design as it is also known, is based on the
rationale of the known order and movement of the universe. The universe operates according to
set laws, continuing to unfold and subsist in a pattern. The chances of such accidental creation to
have taken place are grossly phenomenal. Even mathematically, it is astonishing. For many,
this is too much to be coincidental. Part of the problem is, in fact, that it does not necessity a
God nor prove a God, however, neither does it disprove. It does suggest there is another reason,
or cause, for which the universe is as it is. Still, the greater the odds, the less likely such things
occur of accident. The chances of life occurring on this planet, of all planets, in the whole
universe, is less than 1 chance in 10182. Others, considering the possibility of life on other
5. RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE 5
planets, based on evolution, hold it to be less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years. ( (Staff
2008)) Even scientifically, these probabilities are practically null.
Based on the article, McCloskey's view of faith is based on Tillich's definition of faith as
"being ultimately concerned, as claiming truth for its concern, and as involving commitment,
courage, and the taking of risk." (P. 65) In response, McCloskey holds that this 'risk' is reckless
and irrational due to the problematic nature of evil. The mere existence of evil in the world
suggests that an all-perfect being is not perfect, otherwise creation would have no flaws. In
effect, he is using the same argument from design and the teleological argument - that from the
effects you can determine the cause. So if creation is flawed by these evils, and creation goes
back to God, then God is flawed. McCloskey does not continue to prove or disprove any valid
reason for accepting or denying God's existence. In effect, he is guilty of begging the question.
Is faith in a friend, based upon predetermined knowledge, really faith? The decision to
trust a friend is based upon the rational of previous actions and the probability of this friend
either repeating the actions or changing the actions. This is rational probability, not
faith. Moreover, If we understood God and all his actions, then there would not be a need for
faith, because we would already know God. Faith presupposes little to no knowledge of the
individual or action/event to take place.
The problem of evil has been a long-standing issue in philosophy and theology. Indeed,
it is difficult to reconcile the idea of an omnipotent and caring Being if evil continues to subsist
in the world. McCloskey does not formally define what he understands evil to mean. He
provides all kinds of "familiar" notions for explaining evil (see p.66), but he is really utilizing
hearsay, opinion, and figures of speech to validate his own point. Most philosophers distinguish
6. RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE 6
between types of evil; physical evil - the deprivation of something that naturally belongs to
someone, such as missing an arm when we normally have two. There is natural evil - when some
unforeseeable wrong occurs outside of anyone's control; such as natural disasters. Moral evil is
an action resulting in a negative effect.
McCloskey first disregards physical and moral evil as the result of a bungling
God. These things would not occur if creation were always perfect. However, the existence of
evil in these manners does not disprove the omnipotence nor care of a Creator. In fact,
McCloskey feels he sufficiently eliminates the possibility of a loving and perfect God by
describing that which we already know - that evil exists. The problem of evil is really his only
answer to theism. He does not provide any ontological disproof, or physical disproof, of God's
existence. He merely says "there is evil, therefore there is no God", a fallacy pro quid quo.
There is a difference between direct evil and unintended evil. If the world is created in such a
pattern that its laws must take effect, then these effects will occur. Hurricanes occur because of
the nature of warm sea air. Hurricanes do not occur because God determined hurricanes should
strike and kill people, much rather they occur because the physics of warm air over the seas have
that causal relation. Surely, things like a plane accident cannot be directly blamed on a hateful
God. Accidents of this nature are due to the mechanics utilized by man.
Moral evil and the non-existence of God is the most irrelevant argument of all. Free will
is the most obvious and self-evident of all truths. If free will were not true, then all laws, reward,
punishment, and so forth would be void of meaning and purpose. It is evident that we make
choices. Removing that free will from creation would be the crowning disregard for creation. If
free agents were not free, there would be no virtue, wrong, or right. There would only be action
towards a predetermined end, much like a computer. Right and wrong require the ability to
7. RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE 7
know and understand the difference between the two as expressed in action. So really, how can
we compare freedom to non-freedom? How is it possible to ask, as McCloskey does, "would it
really be a worse total state of affairs for us to be rational automata?" If freedom were removed,
to what end is there a rational method; I would already have to know what to do and how to do it
in order to be automata. This is a contradiction.
5. McCloskey's view that atheism is more comforting.
The first problem in this section is the use of the phrase "acts of God." Based on this
term, McCloskey attributes all evil to God. First, the phrase is a figure of speech commonly used
to describe unforeseeable events. He holds that a bad action is, for some reason, an injustice or
wrong afforded an individual, as such with disease. Which is inferior, the laws of nature or our
ability to understand the laws of nature? These laws, as laws, must follow their established
patterns. If there were no patterns, no laws, no effects, no consequence, and so forth, to what end
is there creation? It would then be like a toy God created to amuse himself and to demonstrate to
himself, for whatever reason, that he could create such things. It is the act of an omnipotent and
loving God to create in a manner where creation holds part of its own determination. To allow
that is mightier than automatic machines that do as predetermined. I am comforted by the
thought that a divine being allowed me to see and know the good and evil in the world and
through that recognize God's action.
8. RESPONSE PAPER MCCLOSKEY ARTICLE 8
References
H. J. McCloskey, “On Being an Atheist”, from Question 1, February 1968, pp. 51-54.
Arthur F. Holmes, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions Second Edition, Downers Grove, IL,
InterVarsity Press, 2007.
C. Stephen Evans, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking of Faith, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity
Press, 1982.