This document discusses arguments for and against the existence of God from both a Christian and atheist perspective. It summarizes the views of H.J. McCloskey, an atheist author who argues that there are no undisputed proofs or signs of intelligent design in the world. Christians counter that while proofs have limitations, taking a cumulative case approach provides good reasons to believe in God. The problem of evil and pointless suffering is a major objection of atheism, though Christians believe God allows free will and that evil serves greater purposes unknown to humans. Overall, the document analyzes theological debates around origins and design without making a definite conclusion.

1. There are many religions that have different views about God and how he relates to us
and the universe. There are many arguments on how the world came into being and how it is all
held together. Looking closely at the arguments between Christianity and Atheism, there are
many things that they disagree on. How the world started with the cosmological argument and
signs of an intelligent designer through the teleological argument. The Author of an article titled
On Being an Atheist, H J McCloskey is detailed in his approach to show the theist that there is no
God and that theism is a comfortless belief to hold. There is no proof for the existence of God
and there is no reason to believe that a perfect God could create a world and yet allow evil into it,
especially pointless evil. By contrasting his argument with Christianity, we can see that there is
more evidence in favor of a loving God governing over us.
Some Christians associate their beliefs to proofs. They look for something in the created
world that will “prove” God’s existence. McCloskey tells in his article, “On Being an Atheist”,
that the Christians rely too heavily on proofs for their belief in God’s existence. They form their
basis of faith around these proofs (p. 62). Granted, there are some things that prove God exist.
There is natural order to the world turns daily. McCloskey deliberates that the proofs cannot
bring you to the belief in God and that you should not rely on them to do so. In a presentation by
Dr. Mark Foreman about Approaching the Question of God, he believes that as Christians, we
should abandon the thought of using proofs. By the definition of a proof, we would have 100%
certainty that God exists. We don’t have that. To combat proofs, we can use the best
explanation approach. “The existence of God is the best explanation to the effects we see in the
universe” (Foreman). We can use this approach to affirm the things that we do not have certainty
of or cannot see. Because we cannot prove God’s existence with complete certainty, our
arguments are defeasible. The holder of the belief could be wrong. Yet, there have not been any
arguments against Christianity to defeat it and make Christians forsake their views and follow a
different religion. There is enough evidence for us to hold true to our beliefs in God by observing
the effects of the universe. Just like proofs do not establish a case for God, taking the cumulative
case approach is another way in which we can know God’s existence. There is no single
argument that gets us to Gods existence (Foreman). By using different cases for His existence,
we build a stronger case. Having a stronger case gets us closer to knowing that God is real. No
one is completely certain that God exists but we have good reasons to believe that He does.
Starting at the beginning, the Cosmological Argument is seen as the way in which the
world came into actuality. Whether by a designer or by an accidental collision of simple atoms
that created more complex beings and the entire world on which we now live. McCloskey
believes that “if one knows nothing about evolution, it is easy to fall into the error of seeing
adaption to environment as evidence of design and purpose” (p. 63). Even with an extensive
knowledge of evolution, there is so much more evidence in favor of a creator and designer. He
explains that the existence of the world does not constitute reason for believing in such a being
(McCroskey p. 63). The universe had to start with something. Everything created has a cause
behind it. The universe as a whole is contingent, meaning that it requires a necessary being.

2. Although it does not point to God directly, atheism believes that there is no higher existence or
originator. McCloskey thinks that the cosmological argument does not entitle us to propose an
all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause (p.64). If someone accepts the conclusion of the
argument, they should show a desire to learn more about God, but if they show no desire
whatsoever about God then the entire conclusion of the argument, and the argument in itself, is
invalid. It would be invalid because that would mean that there is not one answer to there being
an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause but instead there would be multiple causes to the
conclusion.
The universe seems to show signs of order and natural law that seem to be the cause of an
intelligent designer (Evans & Manis p 77). The teleological argument is an argument of how
orderly the cosmos is and how it came to be that way. McCloskey believes that there are not
indisputable examples of design and purpose. The very things that are needed in order to have
proof of an intelligent designer are not there. I believe that there are endless examples of design
and that you could not go outside without thinking that everything was created by an intelligent
being. The way that we ourselves as humans are designed should be evidence enough. Our
bodies are wired in a way to not self -destruct. The way that our cells can fight out bacteria and
keep us healthy, our heart pumps blood efficiently through our whole body system for a number
of years at the same rate. Besides us as humans, we can observe animal’s bodies doing
essentially the same thing. The natural world works with each other in order to sustain
everything that is in it. McCloskey, being an atheist, believes there is no need for a designer. The
evolution of things happens at a very slow rate over a long period of time. There are some things
that cannot be explained by evolution and natural selection that must be explained by intelligent
design (Evans & Manis p. 83). By looking at evolution, it gives us more reason to believe that
everything works with order and that a designer has a hand over it all. McCloskey argues that
there is so much evil and suffering in the world that there is no way a perfect being could have
created the world ( p.65). He is blaming a world so corrupt with pain and suffering on the
creator. Agreeing to the cosmological argument, it does not have anything to do with who the
creator is, just that there is one; a necessary being. It does not deal with who God is or what he
allows to happen.
One claim that turns a lot of people away from theism is the problem of evil. Especially
for McCloskey, there is no way that a perfect creator would create a world in which there was
suffering that could be avoidable. God has given us free will and by doing so, man can choose
what he will and will not do. The evil that exists today comes from His creation performing
immoral acts and having evil things happen as a consequence. So why would God not create a
world in which his creatures could not engage in morally evil acts that result in injury to innocent
people (p. 65)? A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can without the loss of a greater
good or allowing a worse evil (Evan & Manis p. 160). Sometimes evil is necessary in order for
good to come about. Atheist believe that God should be able to do anything. While he is
omnipotent, He cannot do what is logically impossible (Evan & Manis p. 161). He cannot

3. contradict himself and go against certain natural laws. Just because he does not have the ability
to do certain things, it is not a case for his existence. McCoskey also wonders why a perfect
being did not just create man to choose freely what is right (p. 66). As a response to that, Evan
and Manis say, “If God had created a world in which it was guaranteed that no one would ever
do anything wrong, then the “freedom” of his creatures would not have been real; it would have
been some kind of pseudofreedom” (p. 163). God giving us free will and then determining our
every move for us, it is essentially, not free will. Free will allows humans to act in a way that we
see fit without the need of someone planning our next move. By being able to do what we want
to do regardless of God, evil is bound to enter the world. Even Christians who are actively
seeking the Lord will stumble and sin, it is human nature.
Atheism equates that a god would not allow pointless evil to exist. If he were a perfect
being, pointless evil would be extinct. Because God works in mysterious way, humans do not
always know the plan that he has. What seems to be pointless to someone else, it could mean
something to someone else. Not all pointless evil is pointless. God allows evil even though the
person does not know the reasons for it (Evans & Manis p. 171). With a belief in God, we rely
on faith. Knowing that a good God would not allow for pointless evil to exist, everything
happens for a reason in accordance with his will. By becoming more in touch on a personal level
with God, we become more aware of his intentions and his will. We rely on him through faith
knowing that he is doing the best thing for us.
McCloskey comes to the view that atheism is the most comforting and that theism is a
“comfortless, spine-chilling doctrine” (p63). In Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig states
that “If life ends at the grave, then makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or a
saint. Since one’s destiny is ultimately unrelated to one’s behavior, you may as well live as you
please” (p. 74). Without God, there is no morality. There is no standard in which to live your life.
You cannot find fulfillment by chasing after your own hearts desires. That only leads to
destruction. God gives us the ability to know what is morally right and wrong. To say that
atheism is more comforting than this is absurd. With no basis on which you decide things cannot
end happily. With no God and no moral compass, there is no purpose in life. As Christians, we
live to glorify God with our lives. Atheism allows no purpose to which the human lives.
McCloskey is entitled to his opinion on theism while holding an atheistic approach. He
brings up valid points on why you should not believe in the existence of a God. I think that there
are times when all believers and even non- believers wrestle with the idea of a God while evil
runs rampant in their lives. But as it was stated, just because there is evil, does not mean that
there is no God. He allows things to happen for the good. Whether or not we understand, is up to
him.

4. References:
Craig, William Lane, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd Ed.,
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 2008. P. 74.
Evans and Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith (2nd Edition). Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
Forman, Mark, “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence”. Liberty University.
2012.
McCloskey, H.J. “On Being Atheist” Question 1. February 1968.