Response to mccloskey article on being an atheist

Guillermo Gonzalez argues that our planet is situated just so in order to not only benefit from the features of the habitable zone the area relative to a star where an Earth-like planet can flourish but to be able to measure and comprehend the universe as well.

One possible critique is that the only purpose is to live and reproduce, but even that is a purpose and requires an explanation.

It appears that McCloskey is siding more with what can be considered compatibilism, that one has the freedom to choose X even though she does not have the choice to do otherwise.

In other words no objective moral standard can exist without God. This is the intelligence example aforementioned that suggests that human beings make use of intelligence to make machines that play a certain role.

Stephen and Manis R. That is the equivalent of a parent allowing a child in the kitchen after the child has been upset about having to sit on the sidelines and watch.

God gave us free will so that we are free and not just slaves to worship Him under orders. Who are we to trust? He argues that believing in a God during this period will lead to thinking that God is the reason for suffering. The fact that there are creatures in the world that do not know how they came into existence is an indication that some being must have been there in order to cause their existence or else, these creatures would not be in existence since the trail could not be infinite Evans and Manis But at its very core the fine-tuning argument is a powerful argument as our knowledge of the universe deepens.

Which is actually more comforting, the idea that there is an all-powerful creator that imbues the entire universe with meaning and life, or dust that is only on this dust ball for a blink in the eye of eternity blindly flying through space?

A Collegiate Response to 'On Being an Atheist'

However, considering that being atheist does not mean one stops suffering, what then is the need of living without God. He still must explain how these moral terms mean anything if there is not a standard from which to judge.

Now granted he is a child without self-control and should not be allowed in the kitchen for that very reason but is that what McCloskey is comparing himself to in his article?

I, 62 [2] Ibid [3] Evans, C. The parent clearly tells the child not to go anywhere near the stove because the burners are very hot and can burn him badly. His argument is the utter depravity of man under the influence of evil and the relentless suffering the world point towards a hopeless, Godless world.

The answer is intended to be rhetorical, but the picture is clear. It makes no sense to argue that believing in the inexistence of God makes life better and comfortable. These possible reasons, like the example above, can be shown to exist given certain circumstances.

He has always been a part of my consciousness I guess you could say, so the thought of Him just all of a sudden not being there would probably be terrifying to me and I would feel horrible for anyone that had to go through life without Him.

The intricate design of each and every snowflake, all with six legs, but each and every single one is different from the billions of others. The claims are divided into several sections upon which he lays his countering arguments.

If, for example, a husband were contemplating whether or not to cheat on his wife then two future possibilities immediately present themselves: Therefore the concept of evil that McCloskey is trying to use as a rejoinder to those specific arguments is completely irrelevant.

That too can be answered in that, the fallacy of composition, though technically can be applied to certain premises in the argument, the entire argument does not hinge on whether everything is contingent or if the universe itself is contingent.

We have come so far, yet we still have so far to go. Therefore, this particular argument does not prove to be a problem for the compatibility of God and the existence of evil after all.

The two arguments strive to prove nothing more than that. He has always been a part of my consciousness I guess you could say, so the thought of Him just all of a sudden not being there would probably be terrifying to me and I would feel horrible for anyone that had to go through life without Him.

The Discovery Channel is one of the most popular stations on cable, millions of viewers sit transfixed in front of the television screen watching the dances of underwater creatures and land animals, mesmerized by their beauty almost every night but somehow, according to some, the creation of the world falls short of the achievements of a God, I find that to be an unreasonable assumption.

These direct philosophical questions and claims of inconsistency, which William Lane Craig seems to claim that current philosophers even atheists have abandoned Craig, "Reasonable Faith Podcast",fall short of the goal of proving that God does not exist.

Though some seem to think there is an evolutionary answer, that some invisible, untestable, un-provable multiverse theories or universe generating machine theories, and no matter how unlikely these objections may be, are accepted by dogmatic atheists. This law states that every action has a reaction, and every action has an initial cause of that action, which is known as causality.

Therefore, without such an understanding of the cosmological argument, an atheist like McCloskey can assume that the divinity of the world or its purpose is something that one is supposed to see or realize Evans and Manis The pinnacle of the argument is that the existence of evil in no way proves the nonexistence of God, the atheist lacks an ability to contradict the existence of a God simply by the presence of evil in the universe.

He opens with his stated goal: In other words, given the libertarian view, God cannot actualize all possible worlds as McCloskey and Mackie suggests. If we try to live consistently within the framework of the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. In other words, given the libertarian view, God cannot actualize all possible worlds as McCloskey and Mackie suggests.Response Paper Phil A Response to the Article: "On Being An Atheist" by H.

J. McCloskey Joshua Cottrell PHIL D32 Professor Pensgard August 12, The belief in a Creator and a literal God has been a subject of.

A Response to, “On Being an Atheist” by H. J. McCloskey This essay is written as a response to the article entitled “On Being an Atheist” by H. J. McCloskey as published in As this article is clearly an attack on both Christianity and theists in general, we need to be always ready to give an answer for the hope we have in Christ.

Phil Response Paper Mccloskey Article Response Paper Mccloskey Article Clark Hernanser PHIL February 24, Ramon Graces Response Paper Mccloskey Article In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J.

McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more. INTRODUCTION. In the article entitled “On Being an Atheist,” H.J.

A Collegiate Response to 'On Being an Atheist'

McCloskey attempts to refute the notion of the existence of God. He opens with his stated goal: “In this article I wish to remind fellow atheists of the grounds upon which theists base their belief in God, of the inadequacy of these grounds ”. Refuting McCloskey: “On Being an Atheist” Posted on June 24, by shannonclaussen — 3 Comments This essay will discuss and refute the atheistic views of H.

J. McCloskey as mentioned in his article “On Being an Atheist.”. Response to “On Being an Atheist” By: Casandra Privette In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J.

McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more reasonable .

Download
Response to mccloskey article on being an atheist
Rated 0/5 based on 38 review