Approaching the Question of God's Existence - Paper Example

Introduction

The cause why McCloskey refers the arguments to be proofs is because he can reason that the arguments lack the base for the presence of God. Nevertheless, McCloskey attributes the arguments in a level of scientific reality that they were not to be found on for him to state the discussions as "proofs." A proof is a statement that is realistic and not questionable pointing to a final product. The cosmological, teleological, and design opinions deliver points and arguments about the existence of God though they cannot prove alone. The arguments try to explain the possibility of an existing God. Consequently, McCloskey eventually denies himself the likelihood of considering the presence of God as he believes the theist's opinions and assumes that they are proofs. Referring to Foreman's presentation of approach about the existence of God, an individual can suggest that McCloskey uses and interprets the cosmological, teleological, and design opinions in a manner they were not anticipated to be debated.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Reasons for a Necessary Cause of the Universe

McCloskey puts his effort to dismiss on the first argument that focuses majorly on cosmological argument. The cosmological argument discusses the presence of God arguing that it was a must to have a maker of the world may it be a being or a thing. McCloskey suggests that the existence of the world is not sufficient to certify the presence of God. Evans and Manis book of Philosophy of Religion suggests that the non-chronological form states that the contingency of the world is the solution. In their arguments, there are two types of beings, necessary beings, and contingent beings.

A contingent being is the being that a person can observe in the universe and see that the being indeed survives, though its survival is not essential and it depends on something else. A necessary being is a being that survives without a requirement of any support. The necessary nature is the basis that all the contingent people originate from. Manis and Evans suggested that contingent being would be the universe while the necessary being would represent God. Hence, if the universe exists, God must exist. In denial to McCloskey, the universe surrounding him exists because there was an ultimate maker whom according to the cosmological opinion, is God.

Response to McCloskey's Claim on Cosmological Argument

McCloskey argues that the cosmological argument does not allow people to assume a great, faultless and uncaused cause. As stated on question 2a above, according to the cosmological opinion, contingent beings are supposed to stem from a necessary being whereby the universe depends on a maker for its survival and the maker is God. Nonetheless, it is not possible to use the cosmological opinion alone as support of the presence of God. Manis and Evan argue that the cosmological idea contribute a small percentage to explaining the information about God, but instead it is only a surface to describe the actuality of God. Defending and supporting the cosmological argument is supposed to originate from the knowledge of God.

Standard of Indisputability on the Teleological Argument

Another argument addressed by McCloskey is the teleological argument that is also referred to as the argument from design. The teleological argument basis its statement on the look and order observed in the world. The case states that an intellectual maker or designer should exist referring to the opinion from design. Consequently, the existence of God is based on His intelligence as a designer which is observed in the world. McCloskey states that there is a need for real, unquestionable illustrations of plan and purpose to get a proof going. He also says that there are no specific examples that exist hence the opinion does not get going in any way. The effort should be placed on the word unquestionable as McCloskey's statement for unquestionability reverses back to his hypothesis of arguments as proofs.

The teleological opinion is not complete proof of the actuality of God, but an explanation of the world that directs on the reality of God. Thus, McCloskey is correct regarding his statement that no undisputable examples exist as the argument is not an indisputable proof instead it is a potential explanation. It is not possible to rationally apprehend the discussion to a standard of indisputability as the argument is not intended to be specific.

Example of Design Providing Evidence of a Designer of the Universe

Even if the examples might fail to be certain, there are some illustrations of design that direct to the actuality of an intelligent designer of the world. Aquinas states that beneficial order is present, meaning that things in the environment always behave in the similar manner which brings along good results that do not happen by opportunity. An illustration would be the difficulty in the way similar humans and animals function. The brain instructs the body to function and assist in sending information to all parts of the body hence telling the body to move, eat, breathe and reproduce. It also alerts the body in case of danger thereby the body can defend itself.

Technology is another illustration. The establishment of simple and complex machines provides support to the beneficial order that Aquinas speaks about. These illustrations, together with Aquinas statement displays that the natural universe cannot help but be clarified by an intelligent creator. McCloskey makes use of another two opinions to invalidate the teleological argument additionally.

Response to McCloskey Argument on Evolution and Designer

McCloskey uses the theory of evolution to further dismiss the teleological opinion and the requirement for an intelligent designer. The thought that the planet and the living and non-living organisms in it are evolving from the form they were created and developing into modified nature of their original form does not spontaneously give out the notion that the actuality of an intelligent designer who is God. If a person assumes that evolution is right, the question is about if it is still so far-fetched to realize the God who made the universe, allowing universe's creation to develop and adjust into possibly more suitable forms for the challenges encountered in the universe today. McCloskey stated that evolution only rises one's understanding of the complicated and resourceful means whereby the intelligent God understands His drive.

Response to McCloskey Claims of Imperfection in the World

The presence of faultiness in the universe is another reason that makes McCloskey invalidate the teleological argument. He argues that the presence of faultiness is contradictory to divine design. McCloskey wondered how an intelligent designer could have created an imperfect universe. This is a valid question that even the theist could or can ask. The solution to the problem may be found in the deduction of the cosmological argument. The teleological argument is not supposed to deliver proof for the existence of the intelligent designer but should provide an explanation that needs more research and support just like the cosmological argument. The argument returns to the understanding of God and learning about God himself and his character. Though, teleological opinion stays still like a simple clarification that is given to the probability of the existence of God.

Response to McCloskey Argument on the Problem of Evil

The existences of immorality in the universe are the critical fact of McCloskey's argument to theism and the advantage of being an atheist. It is very questionable on how the perfect God could have created a world with many horrifying activities of immorality taking place. It is also a wonder how human beings could be so immoral if God perfectly created the world. The McCloskey questions are tough to claim and challenge even towards an atheist point of opinion. Theists can also ask the same issues as they also observe and come across the immorality of the universe in their everyday routines. Similar to the whole theist arguments, probable explanations are accounting for the existence of sin in the universe, but there are no pieces of evidence.

One of the explanations is the first help for the planetary and teleological perspective in knowing God as the moral and flawless which does not disprove the probability that God who made the world could allow the existence of immorality in the universe. Referring to the teleological argument, the presence of Evil corresponds with a valuable order. The existence of evil in the universe supports in magnifying the moral in the world. It also assists in setting a standard for measuring the meaning of being good. The reason for God's allowing evil in the universe is to assist in helping human to point towards him and hid goodness hence bringing a person back to understanding God. The people free will is another theistic perspective contrary to McCloskey's claim of the existence of evil in the universe.

God provided human with the capability of making their own decisions and have their acts apart from Him. This means that God has provided humans with free will and thus, the existence of immorality in the universe is endorsed to misuse of God's gift of free doings by humans for selfish desires. On this view, McCloskey suggests that God might have made people select what was right and wrong to eradicate immorality continually.

Conclusion

To respond to McCloskey statement, creating man only to make the correct choices would eradicate the existence of immorality in the universe. However, if people lack the free will, there can be an elimination of the possibility of reasonable people freely choosing what to do. The free will is centered on God providing the free will to His people and also providing them with the capability to decide how they spend it. If people pay the free will doing moral acts, it makes the good to be more significant and honest. Also, if God created people only to do righteous acts, it would weaken His value and personality. God is glorified when he allows us to decide to do the right things. Evans and Manis claim that the people who do not believe in God because of the presence of evil require to know God and His goodness.